Search

BackgroundImplementing an open door policy is a complex intervention comprising changes in therapeutic stance, team processes, and a change from locked to open doors. Recent studies show that it can lead to a reduction of seclusion and forced medication, but the role of the physical change of door status is still unclear.AimsThe aims of this study is to examine the transition from closed to predominantly open doors on a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) and its associations with the frequency of seclusion and forced medication.MethodA PICU at the Department of Adult Psychiatry, University of Basel, Switzerland, implemented evidence-based strategies for operating an open door policy within the context of acute psychiatry and participated in a hospital-wide implementation of an open door policy before changing door status. 131 inpatient cases hospitalized on this PICU were examined regarding the frequency of seclusion and forced medication using explorative analyses over a time span of 32 weeks (16 weeks after implementation of the new treatment concept but before door opening, 16 weeks after door opening).ResultsFollowing door status change, the PICU was completely open on 51% of the days and partly open on 23% of the days. The mean number of open hours per day was 12.8 ± 3.9 h. The frequency of forced medication did not change, and the frequency of seclusion decreased significantly [χ2 (1, N = 131) = 4.73, p = 0.036].ConclusionThis pilot study underlines the potential of a change of door status to attain a reduction in safety measures in the first 4 months.

Background Psychiatric inpatient treatment is increasingly performed in settings with locked doors. However, locked wards have well-known disadvantages and are ethically problematic. In addition, recent data challenges the hypothesis that locked wards provide improved safety over open-door settings regarding suicide, absconding and aggression. Furthermore, there is evidence that the introduction of an open-door policy may lead to short-term reductions in involuntary measures. The aim of this study was to assess if the introduction of an open-door policy is associated with a long-term reduction of the frequency of seclusion and forced medication. Method In this 6-year, hospital-wide, longitudinal, observational study, we examined the frequency of seclusion and forced medication in 17,359 inpatient cases admitted to the Department of Adult Psychiatry, Universitäre Psychiatrische Kliniken (UPK) Basel, University of Basel, Switzerland. In an approach to enable a less restrictive policy, six previously closed psychiatric wards were permanently opened beginning from August 2011. During this process, a systematic change towards a more patient-centered and recovery-oriented care was applied. Statistical analysis consisted of generalized estimating equations (GEE) models. Results In multivariate analyses controlling for potential confounders, the implementation of an open-door policy was associated with a continuous reduction of seclusion (from 8.2 to 3.5%; η p 2 = 0.82; odds ratio: 0.88) and forced medication (from 2.4 to 1.2%; η p 2 = 0.70; odds ratio: 0.90). Conclusion This underlines the potential of the introduction of an open-door policy to attain a long-term reduction in involuntary measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: Change of treatment policy from closed to open ward settings has been shown to reduce coercive measures. The aim of the current study was to examine the effects of the change from closed to open wards on the frequency of seclusion and forced medication in a hospital-wide setting. Subjects and methods: 2-year, longitudinal observational study with 2838 inpatient cases. Results: On a hospital-wide level, the percentage of patients with at least one seclusion was decreased significantly (χ 2 (1) = 5.8; p = .016), while there was no significant change in forced medication (χ 2(1) = .08; p = .775). The frequency of seclusions and forced medication decreased significantly on newly opened wards, and there were no significant changes regarding seclusion on permanently closed or open wards, while the number of forced medications increased significantly on closed wards. The decrease in seclusions on newly opened wards remained statistically significant after controlling for diagnoses and severity of illness. Discussion: Our results indicate that a reduction of overall seclusion can be successfully attained, and that, in particular, the frequency of seclusion and forced medication on newly opened wards was decreased significantly. These changes were not accompanied by a significant increase in seclusion on other wards. Conclusion: Open ward treatment was successfully implemented and was associated with a significant decrease of coercive measures in our study. It might therefore provide a good care model, strengthening the patient's right to autonomy and leading to a reduction of coercive measures. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Despite the reform efforts of the last decades modern acute psychiatry still stands between conflicting priorities in everyday practice. The protection of patient autonomy might conflict with a regulatory mandate of psychiatry in societal contexts and the necessity of coercive measures and involuntary treatment might become problematic with respect to presumed but contentious interests of the patient. The conflicts particularly concern questions of involuntary commitment, door closing, coercive and isolation measures. Research on the topic of therapeutic effectiveness of these practices is rare. Accordingly, the practice depends on the federal state, hospital and ward and is very heterogeneous. Epidemiological prognosis predicts an increase of psychiatric disorders; however, simultaneously in terms of medical ethics the warranty of patient autonomy, shared decision-making and informed consent in psychiatry become increasingly more important. This challenges structural and practical changes in psychiatry, particularly in situations of self and third party endangerment which are outlined and a rationale for an opening of the doors in acute psychiatric wards is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementing an open door policy is a complex intervention comprising changes in therapeutic stance, team processes, and a change from locked to open doors. Recent studies show that it can lead to a reduction of seclusion and forced medication, but the role of the physical change of door status is still unclear., Aims: The aims of this study is to examine the transition from closed to predominantly open doors on a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) and its associations with the frequency of seclusion and forced medication., Method: A PICU at the Department of Adult Psychiatry, University of Basel, Switzerland, implemented evidence-based strategies for operating an open door policy within the context of acute psychiatry and participated in a hospital-wide implementation of an open door policy before changing door status. 131 inpatient cases hospitalized on this PICU were examined regarding the frequency of seclusion and forced medication using explorative analyses over a time span of 32 weeks (16 weeks after implementation of the new treatment concept but before door opening, 16 weeks after door opening)., Results: Following door status change, the PICU was completely open on 51% of the days and partly open on 23% of the days. The mean number of open hours per day was 12.8 ± 3.9 h. The frequency of forced medication did not change, and the frequency of seclusion decreased significantly [χ 2 (1, N  = 131) = 4.73, p  = 0.036]., Conclusion: This pilot study underlines the potential of a change of door status to attain a reduction in safety measures in the first 4 months.