Search

Despite many calls to reduce or eliminate the use of mechanical restraint, it is still widely used in many countries. Studies using patient interviews have a very clear message: Patients experience mechanical restraint as the most humiliating intervention. There seems to be a lack of alternatives for violent patients if all other approaches to prevent the use of coercion have failed. We developed a method using 30 kg bags, originally designed for fitness purposes, to be attached to a patient’s wrist or ankle under 1:1 supervision. The method was tested with 10 experienced nurses and de-escalation trainers. A video was made and presented to six outpatients who had previously experienced mechanical restraint. All participants were interviewed. Transcribed interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. All participants approved of the method as a milder and less humiliating alternative to mechanical restraint. The nurses’ main concerns were the risk of falls and the use of the bags as weapons. The latter could be controlled by using an additional bag. Patients were generally positive, especially if there was a history of abuse. The method should be further developed to replace at least some mechanical restraints. As with all ‘milder means’, care should be taken to really replace restraint and not to introduce additional coercion.

BackgroundIn 2018, the German Federal Constitutional Court decided that mechanical restraint is the most intrusive coercive measure and its use requires a judge’s decision after bedside assessment if lasting longer than 30 min. Subsequently, legal changes were realized. The objective of our study was to determine the number of saved coercive episodes and saved hours in seclusion or restraint in 2019 compared to the average of the previous years, 2015–2017, as well as costs per saved episode, hour, and case saved from any coercive measure.MethodsWe used data from the Baden–Wuerttemberg case registry for coercive measures, covering all 32 psychiatric hospitals of the Federal State and 435,767 admissions in the study period. Time expenditure was calculated as 3.5 h with an average of 51.95 € per working hour on the side of the justice system and 1.5 h (45.94 €/h) on the side of the hospital per case.ResultsThe number of coercive episodes decreased by 10.0% from 28,181 (average 2015–2017) to 25,371 (2019). The number of hours in seclusion or restraint decreased by 17.9% from 321,956 (2015–2017) to 264,423 (2019). This resulted in the cost of 872.33 € per saved episode and 42.61 € per saved hour in seclusion or restraint.ConclusionGiven the correctness of our estimations, saving 1 h in coercion by less than 1 h of an expert’s work might be justified from an ethical and economic perspective.

New subgroups of psychiatric disorders are often claimed. In contrast, classification systems have repeatedly had to abandon established subgroups such as paranoid vs. disorganised and catatonic schizophrenia due to lack of empirical evidence. Four criteria are proposed that should be met to claim valid subgroups: 1. distinct distribution of the defining characteristic between groups; 2. significant differences in variables other than those defining the subgroups cross-sectionally and longitudinally; 3. long-term stability; 4. significant differences between groups in aetiology, pathophysiology, and evidence-based therapy. In contrast to examples from somatic medicine, such as type 1 and type 2 diabetes, few psychiatric disorders meet these requirements.

Abstract Background Psychiatric wards treating involuntarily admitted patients are traditionally locked to prevent absconding. However, on the basis of observational evidence, the necessity for locked units in psychiatric hospitals has increasingly been questioned. Updated Mental Health Laws in several Federal States of Germany legitimate involuntary commitment without generally locked doors. Methods We examined the effects of an open-door policy in a quasi-experimental, prospective design. For the first time, at each of two locations, two identical wards serving as control and intervention could be compared. After a baseline period of three months, one ward at each location started the 12 month intervention period with the implementation of an open-door policy, while the respective control ward, as before, used open doors only facultatively. Primary outcomes were average opening times of the four wards between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., and the number of involuntary treatment days with the doors open. Secondary outcomes were adverse events including aggressive incidents, absconding, suicide attempts and coercive measures. Results Overall, door-opening times increased significantly at both sites´ intervention wards. The number of adverse events did not increase during intervention period. Frequencies of coercive measures decreased in Friedrichshafen and remained unchanged in Tuebingen. In case of the intervention ward in Friedrichshafen, doors were open in up to 91% of all involuntary treatment days, whereas in the control ward, this was only the case in 67% of all involuntary treatment days (p

IntroductionThe PreVCo study examines whether a structured, operationalized implementation of guidelines to prevent coercion actually leads to fewer coercive measures on psychiatric wards. It is known from the literature that rates of coercive measures differ greatly between hospitals within a country. Studies on that topic also showed large Hawthorne effects. Therefore, it is important to collect valid baseline data for the comparison of similar wards and controlling for observer effects.MethodsFifty five psychiatric wards in Germany treating voluntary and involuntary patients were randomly allocated to an intervention or a waiting list condition in matched pairs. As part of the randomized controlled trial, they completed a baseline survey. We collected data on admissions, occupied beds, involuntarily admitted cases, main diagnoses, the number and duration of coercive measures, assaults and staffing levels. We applied the PreVCo Rating Tool for each ward. The PreVCo Rating Tool is a fidelity rating, measuring the degree of implementation of 12 guideline-linked recommendations on Likert scales with a range of 0–135 points covering the main elements of the guidelines. Aggregated data on the ward level is provided, with no patient data provided. We performed a Wilcoxon signed-rank-test to compare intervention group and waiting list control group at baseline and to assess the success of randomization.ResultsThe participating wards had an average of 19.9% involuntarily admitted cases and a median 19 coercive measures per month (1 coercive measure per occupied bed, 0.5 per admission). The intervention group and waiting list group were not significantly different in these measurements. There were 6.0 assaults per month on average (0.3 assaults per occupied bed and 0.1 per admission). The PreVCo Rating Tool for guideline fidelity varied between 28 and 106 points. The percentage of involuntarily admitted cases showed a correlation with coercive measures per month and bed (Spearman’s Rho = 0.56, p

Abstract Background Cognitive dysfunction has been reported in acute psychiatric patients for a long time. The detection of cognitive deficits is crucial both for clinical treatment and for predicting the psychosocial functional level in the further course of the disease. The SCIP is a well-evaluated screening instrument for the examination of cognitive performance in psychiatric patients. We recently integrated the SCIP into our routine admission and discharge assessments on two inpatient wards, and we examined the cognitive profiles of patients with psychotic and affective disorders over the course of their admission. Methods Shortly after admission, and prior to discharge, patients were routinely referred for examination with the SCIP. A total of 529 assessments were completed on admission, and 227 returned for SCIP at the time of discharge. After standardization of the test results against a normative sample, we examined the normalized test values in terms of percentages of pathological cognitive performance based on the total SCIP score, and each of the SCIP subscale scores. We conducted cluster analysis to identify cognitive subgroups within the clinical sample. Results More than 70% of the SCIP results on admission were pathological. At discharge, improvements were observed, especially on tests with attention and speed components. Cluster analysis identified two groups. The cluster with chronic patients showed poorer results at admission, but greater improvement and reached the level of the others at discharge. Conclusions The SCIP appears to have value in routine diagnostic assessments, and in the quantification of improvements in cognitive performance during an inpatient stay. The greatest benefit was observed in chronically ill patients with many previous stays. Trial registration DRKS00019825 (retrospectively registered on 03.12.2019).

We describe relevant interfaces between law and psychiatry and current ethical and legal views and changes within the past decades. Ideas of patient autonomy and patients' rights have been major drivers of changes in legal frameworks. We describe developments in the areas of patient information and informed consent, involuntary placement and involuntary treatment, use of coercive measures, forensic psychiatry, digital mental health, data privacy, physician liability, suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, end of life decision-making, advance directives, legal and illegal drugs, and delegation and substitution of professional activities. There is no unidirectional pathway between law and ethics. Views, conflicts, and requirements differ between countries and within countries and will need to be balanced according to the societies' changing values also in the future.

ObjectivesThe objective of the study was to longitudinally assess the outcomes and correlates of suicidal ideation and behavior (SIB) among heroin users who attended inpatient detoxification and psychosocial rehabilitation. SIB was assessed in 300 heroin users upon entry into inpatient detoxification (baseline) as well as 3-months (t1) (n = 252; 84%) and 9-months (t2) (n = 225; 75%) post treatment. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the demographic, clinical and treatment related factors that increased the risk for a high SIB score.ResultsFrom baseline to t1 there was a significant decrease in the proportion of those who endorsed SIB (68.7 vs. 38.9%, p < 0.0001). There was an increase in the proportion of those who endorsed SIB from t1 to t2 (38,9 vs. 47.1%, p = 0.047). There was a significant increase in the proportion of those reporting suicide likely in the near future from baseline to t1 (8.7 vs. 16.3%: p < 0.0049) and this was repeated from t1 to t2 (22.7%) (t1 vs. t2: p = 0.031). After controlling for all other variables, a comorbid mental illness (MI) at baseline was a significant independent risk factor for a high SIB score at t1(RR 1.63; 95% CL 1.30–2.03) (p < 0.0001) and a comorbid MI at t1 increased the risk for a high SIB score at t2 (RR 2.73; 95% CL 1.78–4.19) (p < 0.0001). A poorer general health score and poorer social functioning score at baseline were associated with a high SIB score at baseline (RR 1.02; 95% CL 1.01–1.04) (p = 0.001) and t2, respectively (RR 1.07; 95% CL 1.04–1.11) (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsAmong heroin users, a comorbid mental illness, poorer physical health and poorer social functioning are important factors to consider in suicide risk assessment. Although there were decreases in overall SIB 3 months after detoxification, this trend was not sustained at 9-month follow-up. After detoxification there were significant increases in the proportion of those reporting a likelihood of suicide in the following 3 months. The results suggests that the treatment exposure did not adequately mitigate suicide risk. There is a need for review of the treatment as well as targeted screening and management of SIB in heroin users attending treatment services.

BackgroundResearch in recent years has demonstrated that the use of coercive measures such as seclusion and restraint differs very much between hospitals within a country. In 2015, a central register for all coercive measures in the German federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg has been established for 32 hospitals treating involuntary patients. The objective of the present study was to identify factors that determine the differences between these hospitals.MethodsData on coercive measures and diagnoses from the central register in 2015–2017 were linked with structural data of the 32 hospitals and their supply areas.ResultsOn average, coercive measures were applied in 6.7% of cases (SD = 2.8%; Min–Max = 0.35–12.0%). The proportion of affected cases was significantly correlated with the proportion of involuntary patients (r = 0.56), the proportion of cases with affective or neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders (r = −0.42), number of hospital beds (r = 0.44), a sheltered home associated with the hospital (r = 0.43) and number of addiction counseling centers per 100,000 inhabitants in the service area (r = −0.39). The final regression model only included the proportion of involuntary cases as a significant predictor (standardized beta = 0.55, adjusted R2 = 0.27).ConclusionsThe predominating part of the considerable variance observed between hospitals could not be explained by structural variables. The proportion of involuntary patients had a significant impact, but a considerable amount of unexplained variance due to different practices within psychiatric hospitals remains.

ObjectiveTo examine whether the pandemic in 2020 caused changes in psychiatric hospital cases, the percentage of patients exposed to coercive interventions, and aggressive incidents.MethodsWe used the case registry for coercive measures of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, comprising case-related data on mechanical restraint, seclusion, physical restraint, and forced medication in each of the State's 31 licensed hospitals treating adults, to compare data from 2019 and 2020.ResultsThe number of cases in adult psychiatry decreased by 7.6% from 105,782 to 97,761. The percentage of involuntary cases increased from 12.3 to 14.1%, and the absolute number of coercive measures increased by 4.7% from 26,269 to 27,514. The percentage of cases exposed to any kind of coercive measure increased by 24.6% from 6.5 to 8.1%, and the median cumulative duration per affected case increased by 13.1% from 12.2 to 13.8 hrs, where seclusion increased more than mechanical restraint. The percentage of patients with aggressive incidents, collected in 10 hospitals, remained unchanged.ConclusionsWhile voluntary cases decreased considerably during the pandemic, involuntary cases increased slightly. However, the increased percentage of patients exposed to coercion is not only due to a decreased percentage of voluntary patients, as the duration of coercive measures per case also increased. The changes that indicate deterioration in treatment quality were probably caused by the multitude of measures to manage the pandemic. The focus of attention and internal rules as well have shifted from prevention of coercion to prevention of infection.

Background: On 23 July 2018, the German Constitutional Court decided that mechanical restraint in psychiatric patients lasting longer than 30 minutes requires a judge's immediate decision. On the same day, the German Association for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy published its guideline on the prevention of coercion and violence. The registry for coercive measures in the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, available since 2015 and comprising all 32 hospitals licensed to admit involuntary patients, has made it possible to evaluate the effect of the legal change, considered the strongest intervention ever in Germany to reduce coercion. Methods: We analysed the mean percentage of patients subjected to coercive measures and the mean cumulative duration of these interventions in ICD-10 diagnostic groups in psychiatric hospitals from 2017 compared to 2019 among a total of 233,0273 admissions. Findings: The percentage of patients subjected to any kind of freedom-restricting coercion decreased from 6·6% in 2017 to 5·8% in 2019 (p = 0·000). Accordingly, the percentage of patients subjected to mechanical restraint decreased from 4·8% to 3·6% in 2019 (p = 0·000). At the same time, the percentage of patients subjected to seclusion increased from 2·9% to 3·3% (p = 0·000). The median cumulated duration of restraint and seclusion per affected case decreased from 12·5 to 11·9 hrs (p = 0·001). Interpretation: There is clear evidence that a strong legal intervention was effective in reducing the use of coercive measures under routine conditions. Funding: The registry is funded by the Ministry of Social Welfare and Integration.

This study explores the relationship between temperature and the number of aggressive incidents and coercive interventions in the years 2007–2019 in six psychiatric hospitals in the south of the Germany with a total of 1007 beds. The number of aggressive incidents among 164 435 admissions was significantly higher on ‘heat days’ (≥30°C). Furthermore, there was a dose–response relationship between the number of aggressive incidents and increasing temperature. In contrast, the number of coercive interventions was not related to temperature. Considering the background of global warming, rising temperature could result in more frequent aggressive behaviour during in-patient treatment of psychiatric patients.

Abstract Background Acute psychiatric wards in Germany are often locked due to the assumption that opening could endanger patients and society. On the contrary, some findings suggest that aversive events such as absconding and attempted suicides do not occur more often on wards with an open-door policy. However, these data are probably biased with regard to differing patient populations on open and locked wards. To our best knowledge, the present study is the first prospective controlled study with a quasi-experimental design dealing with this issue. Methods This study investigates whether indicators of an open-door policy, as measured by a priori determined outcomes, can be improved by a defined complex intervention on two intervention wards in two psychiatric hospitals, compared to two control wards with otherwise very similar conditions. Both hospitals contain two wards identical in structure and patient admittance policies, so that a similar study protocol can be followed with similar patient populations. Both hospitals have a defined catchment area and receive voluntary and involuntary admissions. In a baseline phase, wards will be opened facultatively (i.e., if it seems possible to staff). In the following intervention period, one ward per hospital will establish an enhanced open-door policy by applying additional strategic and personnel support. As a control group, the control ward will continue to be opened facultatively. After one year, control wards will be opened according to the open-door policy as well. Interventions will include the continuous identification of patients at risk as well as the development of individual care concepts and additional staffing. For this purpose, nursing and medical staff will be methodically supported on an ongoing basis by study staff. Outcomes variables will be the percentage of door opening on each ward between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., the percentage of all treatment days with the door opened and the number of involuntary treatment days with open doors. Data on frequencies of aggressive incidents, absconding, police searches, and seclusion or restraint will be used as control variables. Additional costs will be calculated. Discussion Treating mentally ill patients on locked wards is a highly relevant and critically discussed topic. In particular, it is controversially discussed whether changes in door policy can be established without increasing risks to patients and others. This study aims to gain robust data on this issue, going beyond beliefs and questionable retrospective observational studies. Trial registration Our trial “Open Doors By Fair Means” is retrospectively registered with DRKS (DRKS00015154) on Sept. 10th 2018 and displayed on the public web site. It is searchable via its Meta-registry (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/).

IntroductionIn a meta-analysis of international studies, 17% of admitted patients in psychiatric hospitals had exhibited violent behavior toward others. Reported data from studies in Germany were considerably lower until recent years. However, studies examining only single hospitals, as well as the quality of the data itself, have raised questions as to the validity of these findings. Indeed, a debate currently exists as to whether there has, in fact, been an increase of violent incidents in German mental institutions.MethodsIn a group of 10 hospitals serving about half the population of the Federal State of Baden-Wuerttemberg with 11 million inhabitants, the Staff Observation Aggression Scale-Revised (SOAS-R) was introduced into patients' electronic charts as part of routine documentation. Data recording was strongly supported by staff councils and unions. A completed data set is now available for the year 2019. For one hospital, data are available since 2006. Due to some doubts with respect to fully covering self-directed aggression, we restricted the analysis to aggression toward others and toward objects.ResultsIn 2019, 17,599 aggressive incidents were recorded in 64,367 admissions (1,660 staying forensic psychiatric inpatients included). 5,084 (7.90%) of the admitted cases showed aggressive behavior toward others. Variation between hospitals was low to modest (SD = 1.50). The mean SOAS-R score was 11.8 (SD between hospitals 1.20%). 23% of the incidents resulted in bodily harm. The percentage of patients showing violent behavior was highest among patients with organic disorders (ICD-10 F0) and lowest among patients with addictive or affective disorders (F1, F3, F4). Forensic psychiatry had the highest proportion of cases with aggressive behavior (20.54%), but the number of incidents per bed was lower than in general adult psychiatry and child and adolescent psychiatry (indicating a lower risk for staff). In the hospital with longer-term recordings available, an increase could be observed since 2010, with considerable variation between years.ConclusionsThis is the most robust estimate of the frequency of violent incidents in German psychiatric hospitals thus far. The incidence is about half of what has been reported internationally, probably due to sample selection bias in previous studies and a relatively high number of hospital beds in Germany. Available data suggest an increase of violent incidents over the last ten years; however, it is unclear to which extent this is due to increased reporting.

We performed a cross-sectional study using a self-reporting survey to assess lifetime violent and non-violent victimization in people with severe mental illness experienced both inside (i.e., any service providing mental health care such as psychiatric hospitals, psychosocial rehabilitative programs, or outpatient care) and outside (i.e., in the personal life of the participants) of the mental health care system. We recruited 170 participants from 20 community mental health facilities. We built logistic regression models to assess potential risk factors for victimization inside the mental health care system. Outside of the mental health care system, the most commonly reported events were theft (n=93, 54.7%), physical violence without use of a weapon (n=87, 51.2%), and sexual harassment (n=82, 50.6%). Within the mental health care system, most commonly reported incidents were theft (n=68, 40.0%), sexual assault (n=18, 10.6%), and physical violence (n=47, 27.7%) by other patients or staff. Significant risk factors for specific victimization events inside the mental health care system were psychotic disorder, victimization in childhood and youth, female gender, number of hospitalizations, and duration of illness. Findings call for increased attention to victimization of people with severe mental illness, especially within the mental health care system as such victimization events may severely impact patients’ trajectories.

BackgroundCoercive measures are among the most controversial interventions in psychiatry. There is a large discrepancy between the sheer number of high-quality guidelines and the small number of scientifically accompanied initiatives to promote and evaluate their implementation into clinical routine. In Germany, an expert group developed guidelines to provide evidence- and consensus-based recommendations on how to deal with violence and coercion in psychiatry.MethodsThe study presented examines whether coercive measures on psychiatric wards can be reduced by means of an operationalized implementation of the guidelines “Prevention of coercion: prevention and therapy of aggressive behavior in adults”. Out of a set of 12 interventions offered, wards are free to choose three interventions they want to implement. The primary outcome is the number of coercive measures per bed and month/year. Secondary outcomes are cumulative duration of coercive measures per bed and month/year. The most important control variable is the number of aggressive incidents. We plan to recruit 52 wards in Germany. Wards treating both voluntary and compulsorily admitted patients will be included. A 1:1 stratified randomized controlled trial will be conducted stratified by the amount of coercive measures and implemented aspects of the guidelines. In addition to the control group analysis, a waiting list design allows a pre-post analysis for all participating wards of the waiting list group. A parallel qualitative study will examine factors related to successful implementation and to successful reduction of coercion as well as relevant barriers.DiscussionWe are planning a nationwide study on the implementation of evidence- and consensus-based guidelines in psychiatric hospitals. This study intends to promote the transfer of expert knowledge as well as results from clinical trials into clinical routine with the potential to change supply structures in mental health sector.Clinical Trial Registrationwww.isrctn.com, identifier ISRCTN71467851.

Background: In Germany, people suffering from severe mental illness who have committed serious offenses and have considerably reduced or suspended criminal responsibility can be detained and treated in forensic psychiatric hospitals. In the German federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, all psychiatric hospitals including forensic psychiatric hospitals are obliged to record data on every coercive intervention and to submit them to a central registry. The objective of this study was to determine key measures for the use of seclusion and restraint and to compare them with data from the same registry on the use of coercion in general inpatient mental health care.Methods: Data on the main psychiatric diagnosis according to ICD-10, type and duration of each coercive measure and number of treated cases according to diagnoses, and cumulated number of days of treatment from all 8 forensic facilities in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg covering a catchment area with about 11 million inhabitants were collected at the treated-case-level for 3 years.Results: 22.6% of the cases treated in 2017 in forensic psychiatric hospitals were subjected to seclusion, and 3.8% were subjected to mechanical restraint. The mean cumulated duration of seclusion episodes per affected case was 343.9 h and the mean cumulated duration of restraint episodes was 261.7 h. 13.2% of the treated cases were subjected to room confinement with a mean cumulated duration of 539.1 h per affected case. Involuntary medication was applied in 1.9% of the cases. In general psychiatry, 2.9% of the treated cases were subjected to seclusion, and 4.7% were subjected to mechanical restraint. The mean cumulated duration per affected case amounted to 32.2 h for seclusion episodes and to 37.6 h for restraint episodes. Involuntary medication was applied in 0.6% of cases.Conclusion: Compared to general psychiatry, mechanical restraint is used in forensic psychiatry substantially less frequently and seclusion substantially more frequently. Room confinement is used only in forensic psychiatric hospitals. Use of involuntary medication is rare. On the one hand, recorded involuntary medication comprises only clear actions against the patient's expressed will as defined by law. Psychological pressure to take medication to avoid other forms of coercion and to achieve higher levels of freedom within the facility is not recorded. On the other hand, the low numbers of clear involuntary medication probably reflect the high legal threshold for such interventions, and, consequently, efforts by staff to motivate voluntary acceptance. The long duration of freedom-restricting coercive measures in forensic psychiatry probably reflects the selection of patients at high risk of violence.

AbstractBackgroundMany interventions to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint have been suggested in the last decades. Evidence-based interventions in old age psychiatry are different from those in general psychiatry. A common database for psychiatric hospitals introduced in 2004 allowed to examine the use of seclusion and restraint over 16 years under routine conditions.MethodsA registry for coercive measures in the Federal State of Baden-Wuerttemberg has been available since 2015, and comprises all 32 hospitals licensed to admit involuntary patients. A study group had collected data prospectively since 2004 from a subsample of these hospitals. We analyzed the mean percentage of patients subjected to coercive measures and the mean cumulative duration of these interventions in ICD-10 diagnostic groups in psychiatric hospitals from 2004 to 2019 among a total of 1,038,239 admissions.ResultsThe proportion of cases affected by coercive measures dropped significantly from 28.4 to 10.5% in patients with ICD-10 F0 disorders, while rates in patients with other diagnoses decreased insignificantly from 7.0 to 5.4%. The cumulated duration of coercive measures per affected case also dropped significantly among patients with F0 disorders, while changes in patients with other diagnoses remained insiginficant.ConclusionsThe use of coercive measures in patients with organic disorders could be reduced by about 50% in a State of 11 million inhabitants within 15 years, while in contrast no substantial reduction occurred among all other diagnostic groups. Specific interventions to reduce coercive interventions seem to be particularly successful for this patient group.

Background: For centuries coercive measures in psychiatry have been means of averting acute danger. It has been known for almost as long that these measures can lead to harm or even death to those affected. Over the past two decades the topic has increasingly been the subject of scientific discussion and research. While the legal and ethical preconditions for coercive measures in psychiatry as well as epidemiological studies on their incidence and patients’ subjective experiences have increasingly come into focus, research on possible adverse events has lagged behind. To our knowledge there is no systematic review on the harmful or even fatal physical adverse effects of coercive interventions in psychiatry.Methods: We searched the databases PubMed and CINAHL for primary literature with a search string based on the PICO framework including key words describing different psychiatric diagnoses, coercive measures, and harms.Results: In total, 67 eligible studies (mainly case reports and case series) of very heterogeneous quality were included. Two RCTs were found reporting position-dependent cardiac deterioration, but were, however, carried out with healthy people and were characterized by a small number of cases. Death was the most frequently reported harm: cardiac arrest by chest compression in 14 studies, cardiac arrest by strangulation in 9, and pulmonary embolism in 8 studies. Further harms were, among others, venous thromboembolism and injuries. Injuries during physical restraint were reported in 0.8–4% of cases. For other kinds of coercive interventions, there are no sufficient data. Venous thromboembolism occurred in a considerable percentage of cases during mechanical restraint, also under prophylaxis. The most commonly reported coercive measure was restraint, distinguishing in mechanical restraint (43 studies), physical restraint (22 studies), bedrails (eight studies), vest restraint (7 studies), and chair restraint (6 studies). Forced medication was explicitly mentioned only in two, but seems to have occurred in nine studies. Six studies included seclusion.Conclusion: Coercive measures can lead to physical harm or even death. However, there is a significant lack of data on the incidence of such adverse events related to coercive interventions. Though reported anecdotally, physical adverse events during seclusion appear to be highly underresearched.

Objective: Between June 2012 and February 2013, two decisions by the German Federal Constitutional Court restricted the so-far common practice to use involuntary medication in inpatients who were involuntarily hospitalized. Up to then, involuntary medication was justified by a judge’s decision on involuntary hospitalization. It could be applied according to clinical judgment even against the declared will of a patient. Since then, all domestic laws related to involuntary treatment had to be revised. For several months, involuntary medication was allowed only in an emergency. We were interested in the impact of the changed legal framework on the experiences of inpatients, their relatives, and clinical professionals during that time.Methods: Thirty-two interviews were analyzed qualitatively using a grounded theory methodology framework.Results: As a consequence of the restrictions to involuntary medication, special efforts by nursing and medical staff were required concerning de-escalation, ward management, and the promotion of treatment commitment in inpatients who refused medication. Family caregivers were also under strong pressure. They wanted to help and to protect their relatives, but some also welcomed the use of coercion if the patient refused treatment. Most of the interviewed patients had not even noticed that their rights to refuse medication had been strengthened. They complained primarily about the involuntary hospital stay and the associated limitations of their everyday lives. While patients and family members evaluated the refusal of medication from a biographical perspective, the mental health care professionals’ focus was on the patients’ symptoms, and they understood the situation from a professional perspective. It was obvious that, in any of the four perspectives, the problem of feeling restricted was crucial and that all groups strived to gain back their scope of action.Conclusion: The temporary ban on involuntary medication questioned the hitherto common routines in inpatient treatment, in particular when patients refused to take medication. Each of the different groups did not feel good about the situation, for different reasons, however. As a consequence, it might be indispensable to increase awareness of the different perspectives and to focus the efforts on the establishment of nonviolent treatment structures and practices.