Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective The aim of this study was to identify quantitative data on the use of seclusion and restraint in different countries and on initiatives to reduce these interventions. Methods Combined literature review on initiatives to reduce seclusion and restraint, and epidemiological data on the frequency and means of use in the 21st century in different countries. Unpublished study was detected by contacting authors of conference presentations. Minimum requirements for the inclusion of data were reporting the incidence of coercive measures in complete hospital populations for defined periods and related to defined catchment areas. Results There are initiatives to gather data and to develop new clinical practice in several countries. However, data on the use of seclusion and restraint are scarcely available so far. Data fulfilling the inclusion criteria could be detected from 12 different countries, covering single or multiple hospitals in most counties and complete national figures for two countries (Norway, Finland). Both mechanical restraint and seclusion are forbidden in some countries for ethical reasons. Available data suggest that there are huge differences in the percentage of patients subject to and the duration of coercive interventions between countries. Conclusions Databases on the use of seclusion and restraint should be established using comparable key indicators. Comparisons between countries and different practices can help to overcome prejudice and improve clinical practice.

While principle-based ethics is well known and widely accepted in psychiatry, much less is known about how decisions are made in clinical practice, which case scenarios exist, and which challenges exist for decision-making. Protocols of the central ethics committee responsible for four psychiatric hospitals over 7 years (N=17) were analysed. While four cases concerned suicide risk in the case of intended hospital discharge, the vast majority (N=13) concerned questions of whether the responsible physician should or should not initiate the use of coercion in patients lacking mental capacity. The committee’s recommendations were non-uniform. Forced feeding and electroconvulsive therapy were endorsed in each one case. In two cases of intermittent loss of capacity due to heavy drinking or intermittent severe suicidal ideation, a self-binding contract was recommended and the use of coercion was considered as justified for a very limited period. In all other cases, most of which involved involuntary treatment, the use of coercion was not endorsed. Without exception, the recommendations were accepted with relief by the physicians and their treatment teams, who feared liability in the event of harm to the patient. Eventually, a model of a decision algorithm was derived from the ethical arguments in the protocols.

Purpose Continuous observation of psychiatric inpatients aims to protect those who pose an acute risk of harm to self or others, but involves intrusive privacy restrictions. Initiating, conducting and ending continuous observation requires complex decision-making about keeping patients safe whilst protecting their privacy. There is little published guidance about how to balance privacy and safety concerns, and how staff and patients negotiate this in practice is unknown. To inform best practice, the present study, therefore, aimed to understand how staff and patients experience negotiating the balance between privacy and safety during decision-making about continuous observation. Methods Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with thirty-one inpatient psychiatric staff and twenty-eight inpatients. Results Most patients struggled with the lack of privacy but valued feeling safe during continuous observation. Staff and patients linked good decision-making to using continuous observation for short periods and taking positive risks, understanding and collaborating with the patient, and working together as a supportive staff team. Poor decision-making was linked to insufficient consideration of observation’s iatrogenic potential, insufficient collaboration with patients, and the stressful impact on staff of conducting observations and managing risk. Conclusions Best practice in decision-making about continuous observation may be facilitated by making decisions in collaboration with patients, and by staff supporting each-other in positive risk-taking. To achieve truly patient-centred decision-making, decisions about observation should not be influenced by staff’s own stress levels. To address the negative impact of staff stress on decision-making, it may be helpful to improve staff training, education and support structures.

Involuntary hospital treatment is practised throughout the world. Providing appropriate treatment in this context is particularly challenging for mental health professionals, who frequently face ethical issues as they have to administer treatments in the absence of patient consent. We have explored the views of 59 psychiatric patients who had been involuntarily admitted to hospital treatment across England. Moral deliberation theory, developed in the field of clinical bioethics, was used to assess ethical issues. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and analysed through thematic content analysis. We have detected a number of circumstances in the hospital that were perceived as potentially conflictual by patients. We have established which patient values should be considered by staff when deliberating on ethically controversial issues in these circumstances. Patients regarded as important having freedom of choice and the feeling of being safe during their stay in the hospital. Patients also valued non-paternalistic and respectful behaviour from staff. Consideration of patient values in moral deliberation is important to manage ethical conflicts. Even in the ethically challenging context of involuntary treatment, there are possibilities to increase patient freedoms, enhance their sense of safety and convey respect.

Nurses who exert coercive measures on patients within psychiatric care are emotionally affected. However, research on their working conditions and environment is limited. The purpose of the current study was to describe nurses' experiences and thoughts concerning the exertion of coercive measures in forensic psychiatric care. The investigation was a qualitative interview study using unstructured interviews; data were analyzed with inductive content analysis. Results described participants' thoughts and experiences of coercive measures from four main categories: (a) acting against the patients' will, (b) reasoning about ethical justifications, (c) feelings of compassion, and (d) the need for debriefing. The current study illuminates the working conditions of nurses who exert coercive measures in clinical practice with patients who have a long-term relationship with severe symptomatology. The findings are important to further discuss how nurses and leaders can promote a healthier working environment. [ Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services , 54 (9), 37–43.]

Background Seclusion is an invasive clinical intervention used in inpatient psychiatric wards as a continuation of milieu therapy with vast behavioural implications that raise many ethical challenges. Seclusion is in Norway defined as an intervention used to contain the patient, accompanied by staff, in a single room, a separate unit, or an area inside the ward. Isolation is defined as the short-term confinement of a patient behind a locked or closed door with no staff present. Few studies examine how staff experiences the ethical challenges they encounter during seclusion. By making these challenges explicit and reflecting upon them, we may be able to provide better care to patients. The aim of this study is to examine how clinical staff in psychiatric inpatient wards describes and assess the ethical challenges of seclusion. Methods This study was based on 149 detailed written descriptions of episodes of seclusion from 57 psychiatric wards. A descriptive and exploratory approach was used. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results The main finding is that the relationship between treatment and control during seclusion presents several ethical challenges. This is reflected in the balance between the staff’s sincere desire to provide good treatment and the patients’ behaviour that makes control necessary. Particularly, the findings show how taking control of the patient can be ethically challenging and burdensome and that working under such conditions may result in psychosocial strain on the staff. The findings are discussed according to four core ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Conclusion Ethical challenges seem to be at the core of the seclusion practice. Systematic ethical reflections are one way to process the ethical challenges that staff encounters. More knowledge is needed concerning the ethical dimensions of seclusion and alternatives to seclusion, including what ethical consequences the psychosocial stress of working with seclusion have for staff.

Background An ethics reflection group (ERG) is one of a number of ethics support services developed to better handle ethical challenges in healthcare. The aim of this article is to evaluate the significance of ERGs in psychiatric and general hospital departments in Denmark. Methods This is a qualitative action research study, including systematic text condensation of 28 individual interviews and 4 focus groups with clinicians, ethics facilitators and ward managers. Short written descriptions of the ethical challenges presented in the ERGs also informed the analysis of significance. Results A recurring ethical challenge for clinicians, in a total of 63 cases described and assessed in 3 ethical reflection groups, is to strike a balance between respect for patient autonomy, paternalistic responsibility, professional responsibilities and institutional values. Both in psychiatric and general hospital departments, the study participants report a positive impact of ERG, which can be divided into three categories: 1) Significance for patients, 2) Significance for clinicians, and 3) Significance for ward managers. In wards characterized by short-time patient admissions, the cases assessed were retrospective and the beneficiaries of improved dialogue mainly future patients rather than the patients discussed in the specific ethical challenge presented. In wards with longer admissions, the patients concerned also benefitted from the dialogue in the ERG. Conclusion This study indicates a positive significance and impact of ERGs; constituting an interdisciplinary learning resource for clinicians, creating significance for themselves, the ward managers and the organization. By introducing specific examples, this study indicates that ERGs have significance for the patients discussed in the specific ethical challenge, but mostly indirectly through learning among clinicians and development of clinical practice. More research is needed to further investigate the impact of ERGs seen from the perspectives of patients and relatives.

Patient dignity in involuntary psychiatric hospital care is a complex yet central phenomenon. Research is needed on the concept of dignity’s specific contextual attributes since nurses are responsible for providing dignified care in psychiatric care. The aim was to describe nurses’ experiences of violation of patient dignity in clinical caring situations in involuntary psychiatric hospital care. A qualitative design with a hermeneutic approach was used to analyze and interpret data collected from group interviews. Findings reveal seven tentative themes of nurses’ experiences of violations of patient dignity: patients not taken seriously, patients ignored, patients uncovered and exposed, patients physically violated, patients becoming the victims of others’ superiority, patients being betrayed, and patients being predefined. Understanding the contextual experiences of nurses can shed light on the care of patients in involuntary psychiatric hospital care.

Syphilis occupies a unique position in the history of U.S. medicine and medical ethics. Given its widespread prevalence and variable presentation, syphilis was a major professional concern among late nineteenth‐ and early twentieth‐century physicians. Syphilis was also at the center of perhaps the most famous example of medical racism in our history, the U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee, in which officials followed the natural history of the disease in a cohort of black men for forty years without offering treatment, even once penicillin became available. In this essay, I call attention to a less well‐known aspect of syphilis and its history. I examine one of the disease's most dreaded manifestations, neurosyphilis (also known as general paresis or general paralysis of the insane), and its treatment via malarial inoculation from the 1920s into the 1950s. The goal of this treatment, dramatic even to observers at the time, was to produce spiking fevers that would kill the syphilitic spirochete and arrest the disease process. My focus will be on developments at St. Elizabeths Hospital, a large‐scale federal psychiatric facility in the District of Columbia that served the city's residents and members of the U.S. military. Physicians at St. Elizabeths were the first in the United States to experiment with malarial fever therapy, treating their initial cohort of patients in December of 1922. Malarial fever therapy raised a host of ethical questions, rendered all the more complex from today's vantage point by efforts to understand them within the context of the time. What sorts of risks, both from malaria and via indirect exposure, might be deemed acceptable in the treatment of a devastating and almost invariably fatal disease? How ought researchers and clinicians to have approached the question of consent, itself an evolving concept in the early decades of the twentieth century, when the disease they were targeting impaired a patient's ability to reason effectively? Finally, at a time when segregated and inferior care for black Americans was the norm and when the black community bore a disproportionate burden of disease, who would have had access to malarial fever therapy, and at what cost?

We assessed whether adult Black and minority ethnic (BME) patients detained for involuntary psychiatric treatment experienced more coercion than similar White patients. We found no evidence of this from patient interviews or from hospital records. The area (mental health trust) where people were treated was strongly associated with both the experience of coercion and the recording of a coercive measure in their records. Regarding charges of institutional racism in psychiatry, this study highlights the importance of investigating the role of area characteristics when assessing the relationship between ethnicity and patient management.