Search

Background: Coercive or restrictive practices such as compulsory admission, involuntary medication, seclusion and restraint impinge on individual autonomy. International consensus mandates reduction or elimination of restrictive practices in mental healthcare. To achieve this requires knowledge of the extent of these practices., Aims: We determined rates of coercive practices and compared them across countries., Method: We identified nine country- or region-wide data-sets of rates and durations of restrictive practices in Australia, England, Germany, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, The Netherlands, the USA and Wales. We compared the data-sets with each other and with mental healthcare indicators in World Health Organization and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development reports., Results: The types and definitions of reported coercive practices varied considerably. Reported rates were highly variable, poorly reported and tracked using a diverse array of measures. However, we were able to combine duration measures to examine numbers of restrictive practices per year per 100 000 population for each country. The rates and durations of seclusion and restraint differed by factors of more than 100 between countries, with Japan showing a particularly high number of restraints., Conclusions: We recommend a common set of international measures, so that finer comparisons within and between countries can be made, and monitoring of trends to see whether alternatives to restraint are successful. These measurements should include information about the total numbers, durations and rates of coercive measures. We urge the World Health Organization to include these measures in their Mental Health Atlas.

Aims: The use of mechanical restraint is a challenging area for psychiatry. Although mechanical restraint remains accepted as standard practice in some regions, there are ethical, legal and medical reasons to minimise or abolish its use. These concerns have intensified following the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Despite national policies to reduce use, the reporting of mechanical restraint has been poor, hampering a reasonable understanding of the epidemiology of restraint. This paper aims to develop a consistent measure of mechanical restraint and compare the measure within and across countries in the Pacific Rim., Methods: We used the publicly available data from four Pacific Rim countries (Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the United States) to compare and contrast the reported rates of mechanical restraint. Summary measures were computed so as to enable international comparisons. Variation within each jurisdiction was also analysed., Results: International rates of mechanical restraint in 2017 varied from 0.03 (New Zealand) to 98.9 (Japan) restraint events per million population per day, a variation greater than 3000-fold. Restraint in Australia (0.17 events per million) and the United States (0.37 events per million) fell between these two extremes. Variation as measured by restraint events per 1000 bed-days was less extreme but still substantial. Within all four countries there was also significant variation in restraint across districts. Variation across time did not show a steady reduction in restraint in any country during the period for which data were available (starting from 2003 at the earliest)., Conclusions: Policies to reduce or abolish mechanical restraint do not appear to be effecting change. It is improbable that the variation in restraint within the four examined Pacific Rim countries is accountable for by psychopathology. Greater efforts at reporting, monitoring and carrying out interventions to achieve the stated aim of reducing restraint are urgently needed.