The Use of Coercive Interventions in Mental Health Care in Germany and the Netherlands. A Comparison of the Developments in Two Neighboring Countries

Abstract

In this review, we compare the use of coercion in mental health care in Germany and in the Netherlands. Legal frameworks and published data on involuntary commitment, involuntary medication, seclusion, and restraint are highlighted as well as the role of guidelines, training, and attitudes held by psychiatrists and the public. Legal procedures regulating involuntary admission and commitment are rather similar, and so is the percentage of involuntary admissions and the rate per 100,000 inhabitants. However, opposing trends can be observed in the use of coercive interventions during treatment, which in both countries are considered as a last resort after all other alternative approaches have failed. In the Netherlands, for a long time seclusion has been considered as preferred intervention while the use of medication by force was widely disapproved as being unnecessarily invasive. However, after increasing evidence showed that number and duration of seclusions as well as the number of aggressive incidents per admission were considerably higher than in other European countries, attitudes changed within recent years. A national program with spending of 15 million € was launched to reduce the use of seclusion, while the use of medication was facilitated. A legislation is scheduled, which will allow also outpatient coercive treatment. In Germany, the latter was never legalized. While coercive treatment in Germany was rather common for involuntarily committed patients and mechanical restraint was preferred to seclusion in most hospital as a containment measure, the decisions of the Constitutional Court in 2011 had a high impact on legislation, attitudes, and clinical practice. Though since 2013 coercive medication is approvable again under strict conditions, it is now widely perceived as very invasive and last resort. There is evidence that this change of attitudes lead to a considerable increase of the use of seclusion and restraint for some patients.

Nurses' attitudes towards the use of PRN psychotropic medications in acute and forensic mental health settings

“…; Steinert et al . ). While systematic reviews have failed to show convincing evidence for the efficacy of PRN medication use in the mental health setting (Chakrabarti et al .…”

Nursing Staff Factors Contributing to Seclusion in Acute Mental Health Care – An Explorative Cohort Study

“…There are large differences in the use of seclusion or other coercive interventions across countries in Europe (Bak & Aggernaes, 2012;Janssen et al, 2009;Steinert, Noorthoorn, & Mulder, 2014). Serious safety hazards in psychiatric hospitals -such as aggression and violence of patients against staff, fellow patients or goods -are the main reason to use coercive interventions (Happell et al, 2012).…”

Psychiatric staff attitudes toward coercive measures: An experimental design

“…In other words, this report revealed that 10% of psychiatric patients in Jordan experienced coercive measures at least once during their admissions. In studies conducted in European countries, the reported levels of restraint and seclusion use was less than 1%. Therefore, the situation in Jordanian psychiatric settings indicates that the frequency of restraint and seclusion is critical and threatening and it may reflect the cultural beliefs and values within which a psychiatric system is situated …”

“…Previous studies have identified the concept of “least restrictive practices” to highlight the principle of trying multiple interventions before coercive measures are initiated. Such less restrictive alternatives are intended to de‐escalate, assess, and provide therapeutic interventions for patient safety and well‐being …”