ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, seclusion is historically the measure of first choice in dealing with aggressive incidents. In 2010, the Mediant Mental Health Trust in Eastern Netherlands introduced a policy prioritising the use of enforced medication to manage aggressive incidents over seclusion. The main goal of the study was to investigate whether prioritising enforced medication over seclusion leads to a change of aggressive incidents and coercive measures. METHODS: The study was carried out with data from 2764 patients admitted between 2007 and 2013 to the hospital locations of the Mediant Mental Health Trust in Eastern Netherlands, with a catchment area of 500,000 inhabitants. Seclusion, restraint and enforced medications as well as other coercive measures were gathered systematically. Aggressive incidents were assessed with the SOAS-R. An event sequence analysis was preformed, to assess the whether seclusion, restraint or enforced medication were used or not before or after aggressive incidents. RESULTS: Enforced medication use went up by 363% from a very low baseline. There was a marked reduction of overall coercive measures by 44%. Seclusion hours went down by 62%. Aggression against staff or patients was reduced by 40%. CONCLUSIONS: When dealing with aggression, prioritising medication significantly reduces other coercive measures and aggression against staff, while within principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and expediency.
Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Coercion , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Mental Disorders/therapy , Mentally Ill Persons/psychology , Restraint, Physical/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aggression/psychology , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitals, Psychiatric/standards , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/psychology , Netherlands , Patient Isolation/statistics & numerical data , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Since the Dutch Mental Health Act of 1984 came into effect, seclusion has often been used as the measure of choice for dealing with aggressive or dangerous patients. In 2012 the Ministry of Health formulated a policy whereby seclusion was to be phased out, but not replaced by involuntary medication. In 2007, within the framework of the Mental Health Act, the Argus system of registering coercive measures was introduced in order to monitor the reduction in the use of seclusion and involuntary medication. This article describes, in a longitudinal cohort study, the effect of the policy to reduce aggression by replacing seclusion through the use of involuntary medication or other measures. AIM: To investigate whether, in the long run, a reduction in the use of seclusion will lead to a proportional increase in the use of involuntary medication, and to assess whether this policy can really be termed 'substitution. METHOD: We performed this study by analysing Argus data for the period 2007-2011, relating to 1843 patients being treated by Mediant. ESULTS The changing proportions of seclusion and involuntary medication over time demonstrated that the use of involuntary medication did result in patients being secluded for a shorter period of time. CONCLUSION: In the case of dangerous psychiatric patients, medication, administered forcibly when necessary, is preferable to seclusion as far as subsidiarity, proportionality and expediency are concerned. A strategy whereby medication provides appropriate treatment and seclusion is kept within reasonable limits cannot be termed 'substitution'.
