Coercive measures were used in a substantial group of involuntarily admitted patients across Europe. Their use appeared to depend on diagnosis and the severity of illness, but use was also heavily influenced by the individual country. Variation across countries may reflect differences in societal attitudes and clinical traditions.

No abstract

The use of coercive measures varied significantly in the participating countries. Clinical factors, such as high levels of psychotic symptoms and high levels of perceived coercion at admission were associated with the use of coercive measures, when controlling for countries' effect. These factors should be taken into consideration by programs aimed at reducing the use of coercive measures in psychiatric wards.

Number and procedures of involuntary hospital admissions vary in Europe according to the different socio-cultural contexts. The European Commission has funded the EUNOMIA study in 12 European countries in order to develop European recommendations for good clinical practice in involuntary hospital admissions. The recommendations have been developed with the direct and active involvement of national leaders and key professionals, who worked out national recommendations, subsequently summarized into a European document, through the use of specific categories. The need for standardizing the involuntary hospital admission has been highlighted by all centers. In the final recommendations, it has been stressed the need to: providing information to patients about the reasons for hospitalization and its presumable duration; protecting patients' rights during hospitalization; encouraging the involvement of family members; improving the communication between community and hospital teams; organizing meetings, seminars and focus-groups with users; developing training courses for involved professionals on the management of aggressive behaviors, clinical aspects of major mental disorders, the legal and administrative aspects of involuntary hospital admissions, on communication skills. The results showed the huge variation of involuntary hospital admissions in Europe and the importance of developing guidelines on this procedure.

Background: A proportion of people with mental health problems require longer term care in a psychiatric or social care institution. However, there are no internationally agreed quality standards for institutional care and no method to assess common care standards across countries.

BackgroundDespite the progress over recent decades in developing community mental health services internationally, many people still receive treatment and care in institutional settings. Those most likely to reside longest in these facilities have the most complex mental health problems and are at most risk of potential abuses of care and exploitation. This study aimed to develop an international, standardised toolkit to assess the quality of care in longer term hospital and community based mental health units, including the degree to which human rights, social inclusion and autonomy are promoted.MethodThe domains of care included in the toolkit were identified from a systematic literature review, international expert Delphi exercise, and review of care standards in ten European countries. The draft toolkit comprised 154 questions for unit managers. Inter-rater reliability was tested in 202 units across ten countries at different stages of deinstitutionalisation and development of community mental health services. Exploratory factor analysis was used to corroborate the allocation of items to domains. Feedback from those using the toolkit was collected about its usefulness and ease of completion.ResultsThe toolkit had excellent inter-rater reliability and few items with narrow spread of response. Unit managers found the content highly relevant and were able to complete it in around 90 minutes. Minimal refinement was required and the final version comprised 145 questions assessing seven domains of care.ConclusionsTriangulation of qualitative and quantitative evidence directed the development of a robust and comprehensive international quality assessment toolkit for units in highly variable socioeconomic and political contexts.

BackgroundThe Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care (QuIRC) is a staff rated, international toolkit that assesses care in longer term hospital and community based mental health facilities. The QuIRC was developed from review of the international literature, an international Delphi exercise with over 400 service users, practitioners, carers and advocates from ten European countries at different stages of deinstitutionalisation, and review of the care standards in these countries. It can be completed in under an hour by the facility manager and has robust content validity, acceptability and inter-rater reliability. In this study, we investigated the internal validity of the QuIRC. Our aim was to identify the QuIRC domains of care that independently predicted better service user experiences of care.MethodAt least 20 units providing longer term care for adults with severe mental illness were recruited in each of ten European countries. Service users completed standardised measures of their experiences of care, quality of life, autonomy and the unit’s therapeutic milieu. Unit managers completed the QuIRC. Multilevel modelling allowed analysis of associations between service user ratings as dependent variables with unit QuIRC domain ratings as independent variables.Results1750/2495 (70%) users and the managers of 213 units from across ten European countries participated. QuIRC ratings were positively associated with service users’ autonomy and experiences of care. Associations between QuIRC ratings and service users’ ratings of their quality of life and the unit’s therapeutic milieu were explained by service user characteristics (age, diagnosis and functioning). A hypothetical 10% increase in QuIRC rating resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in autonomy.ConclusionsRatings of the quality of longer term mental health facilities made by service managers were positively associated with service users’ autonomy and experiences of care. Interventions that improve quality of care in these settings may promote service users’ autonomy.

BackgroundDespite the recent increase of research interest in involuntary treatment and the use of coercive measures, gender differences among coerced schizophrenia patients still remain understudied. It is well recognized that there are gender differences both in biological correlates and clinical presentations in schizophrenia, which is one of the most common diagnoses among patients who are treated against their will. The extent to which these differences may result in a difference in the use of coercive measures for men and women during the acute phase of the disease has not been studied.Methods291 male and 231 female coerced patients with schizophrenia were included in this study, which utilized data gathered by the EUNOMIA project (European Evaluation of Coercion in Psychiatry and Harmonization of Best Clinical Practice) and was carried out as a multi-centre prospective cohort study at 13 centers in 12 European countries. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, social functioning and aggressive behavior in patients who received any form of coercive measure (seclusion and/or forced medication and/or physical restraint) during their hospital stay were assessed.ResultsWhen compared to the non-coerced inpatient population, there was no difference in sociodemographic or clinical characteristics across either gender. However coerced female patients did show a worse social functioning than their coerced male counterparts, a finding which contrasts with the non-coerced inpatient population. Moreover, patterns of aggressive behavior were different between men and women, such that women exhibited aggressive behavior more frequently, but men committed severe aggressive acts more frequently. Staff used forced medication in women more frequently and physical restraint and seclusion more frequently with men.ConclusionsResults of this study point towards a higher threshold of aggressive behavior the treatment of women with coercive measures. This may be because less serious aggressive actions trigger the application of coercive measures in men. Moreover coerced women showed diminished social functioning, and more importantly more severe symptoms from the “excitement/hostile” cluster in contrast to coerced men. National and international recommendation on coercive treatment practices should include appropriate consideration of the evidence of gender differences in clinical presentation and aggressive behaviors found in inpatient populations.