Search

Background: The Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care (QuIRC) is an international, standardised quality tool for the evaluation of mental health facilities that provide longer term care. Completed by the service manager, it comprises 145 items that assess seven domains of care: living environment; treatments and interventions; therapeutic environment; self-management and autonomy; social interface; human rights; and recovery based practice. We used the QuIRC to investigate associations between characteristics of longer term mental health facilities across Europe and the quality of care they delivered to service patients., Methods: QuIRC assessments were completed for 213 longer term mental health units in ten countries that were at various stages of deinstitutionalisation of their mental health services. Associations between QuIRC domain scores and unit descriptive variables were explored using simple and multiple linear regression that took into account clustering at the unit and country level., Results: We found wide variation in QuIRC domain scores between individual units, but across countries, fewer than a quarter scored below 50 % on any domains. The quality of care was higher in units that were smaller, of mixed sex, that had a defined expected maximum length of stay and in which not all patients were severely disabled., Conclusions: This is the first time longer term mental health units across a number of European countries have been compared using a standardised measure. Further use of the QuIRC will allow greater understanding of the quality of care in these units across Europe and provide an opportunity to monitor pan-European quality standards of care for this vulnerable patient group.

Purpose: This study aims to identify whether selected patient and ward-related factors are associated with the use of coercive measures. Data were collected as part of the EUNOMIA international collaborative study on the use of coercive measures in ten European countries., Methods: Involuntarily admitted patients (N = 2,027) were divided into two groups. The first group (N = 770) included patients that had been subject to at least one of these coercive measures during hospitalization: restraint, and/or seclusion, and/or forced medication; the other group (N = 1,257) included patients who had not received any coercive measure during hospitalization. To identify predictors of use of coercive measures, both patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and centre-related characteristics were tested in a multivariate logistic regression model, controlled for countries' effect., Results: The frequency of the use of coercive measures varied significantly across countries, being higher in Poland, Italy and Greece. Patients who received coercive measures were more frequently male and with a diagnosis of psychotic disorder (F20-F29). According to the regression model, patients with higher levels of psychotic and hostility symptoms, and of perceived coercion had a higher risk to be coerced at admission. Controlling for countries' effect, the risk of being coerced was higher in Poland. Patients' sociodemographic characteristics and ward-related factors were not identifying as possible predictors because they did not enter the model., Conclusions: 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.

Objective: Large numbers of psychiatric patients either are involuntarily admitted to hospital treatment or feel coerced despite a legally voluntary admission. For ethical and clinical reasons, their perceived coercion should be reduced as far as possible. There is however limited evidence on patient characteristics associated with perceived coercion during hospital treatment. This study aimed to identify i) sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with perceived coercion at admission and ii) changes in symptoms and global functioning associated with changes in perceived coercion over time., Method: Three thousand and ninety three in-patients who were involuntarily admitted or felt coerced to hospital treatment despite a legally voluntary admission were recruited in the European evaluation of coercion in psychiatry and harmonization of best clinical practice - EUNOMIA project in 11 European countries. Perceived coercion, global functioning and symptoms were assessed after admission and at a 3-month follow-up., Results: Involuntary admission, female gender, poorer global functioning and more positive symptoms were associated with higher levels of perceived coercion at admission. Perceived coercion significantly decreased over time, and the improvements in global functioning and positive symptoms were associated with reduction in perceived coercion., Conclusion: Female patients perceive more coercion in psychiatric hospital treatment. Effective treatment for positive symptoms and improving patients' global functioning may lead to a reduction in perceived coercion., (© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Background: Legislation and practice of involuntary hospital admission vary substantially among European countries, but differences in outcomes have not been studied., Aims: To explore patients' views following involuntary hospitalisation in different European countries., Method: In a prospective study in 11 countries, 2326 consecutive involuntary patients admitted to psychiatric hospital departments were interviewed within 1 week of admission; 1809 were followed up 1 month and 1613 3 months later. Patients' views as to whether the admission was right were the outcome criterion., Results: In the different countries, between 39 and 71% felt the admission was right after 1 month, and between 46 and 86% after 3 months. Females, those living alone and those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia had more negative views. Adjusting for confounding factors, differences between countries were significant., Conclusions: International differences in legislation and practice may be relevant to outcomes and inform improvements in policies, particularly in countries with poorer outcomes.