Standardisierte Nachbesprechung von Zwangsmaßnahmen auf psychiatrischen Akutstationen: Ergebnisse einer Pilotstudie

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Pilotstudie zur Untersuchung eines Leitfadens zur standardisierten Nachbesprechung erfolgter Zwangsmaßnahmen.

Methodik Nach Durchführung von 12 Nachbesprechungen wurden teilnehmende Patienten und Mitarbeiter mittels eines selbstentwickelten Fragebogens mit quantitativen und qualitativen Fragen sowie qualitativer Experten-Interviews befragt.

Ergebnisse Die Intervention wurde von allen Befragten als hilfreich erlebt, insbesondere um die therapeutische Beziehung zu fördern. Der Zeitpunkt des Gesprächs sollte individuell gewählt werden.

Schlussfolgerung Der Leitfaden eignet sich zur Nachbesprechung von Zwangsmaßnahmen.

Abstract

Objective The present pilot study investigates the feasibility of a standardized debriefing measure of coercive interventions, for which a guideline has been developed.

Methods 12 debriefing sessions were conducted and participating patients and staff members were asked about their perception of the intervention and its benefits. A quantitative and qualitative questionnaire was used and 8 expert-interviews conducted.

Results Patients and staff members found the intervention helpful, especially to support a trustful therapeutic relationship. The possibility to express feelings perceived during the coercive measure was also underlined as a core effect of the intervention. On the contrary, patients and staff members didnʼt regard the debriefing session as helpful when looking for alternatives to the coercive measure that took place. The debriefing session should be regularly offered to patients and the moment it takes place needs to be determined individually.

Conclusion The developed guideline can be implemented to conduct debriefing sessions of coercive measures.

• Literatur

• 1 Frueh BC, Knapp RG, Cusack KJ. et al. Special Section on Seclusion and Restraint: Patients’ Reports of Traumatic or Harmful Experiences Within the Psychiatric Setting. Psychiatric Services 2005; 56: 1123-1133
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Theodoridou A, Schlatter F, Ajdacic V. et al. Therapeutic relationship in the context of perceived coercion in a psychiatric population. Psychiatry Res 2012; 200: 939-944
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Katsakou C, Bowers L, Amos T. et al. Coercion and Treatment Satisfaction Among Involuntary Patients. Psychiatr Serv 2010; 61: 286-292
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Priebe S, Katsakou C, Amos T. et al. Patients’ views and readmissions 1 year after involuntary hospitalisation. Br J Psychiatry 2009; 194: 49-54
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Ilkiw-Lavalle O. Differences Between Patient and Staff Perceptions of Aggression in Mental Health Units. Psychiatr Serv 2003; 54: 389-393
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Olofsson B, Jacobsson L. A plea for respect: involuntarily hospitalized psychiatric patients’ narratives about being subjected to coercion. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2001; 8: 357-366
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Katsakou C, Marougka S, Garabette J. et al. Why do some voluntary patients feel coerced into hospitalization? A mixed-methods study. Psychiatry Res 2011; 187: 275-282
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Azeem MW, Aujla A, Rammerth M. et al. Effectiveness of six core strategies based on trauma informed care in reducing seclusions and restraints at a child and adolescent psychiatric hospital. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs 2011; 24: 11-15
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Lewis M, Taylor K, Parks J. Crisis prevention management: A program to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint in an inpatient mental health setting. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2009; 30: 159-164
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Nervenheilkunde – DGPPN. Therapeutische Maßnahmen bei aggressivem Verhalten in der Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie. Heidelberg: Steinkopff; 2010
  Google Scholar
• 11 Mielau J, Altunbay J, Gallinat J. et al. Subjective experience of coercion in psychiatric care: a study comparing the attitudes of patients and healthy volunteers towards coercive methods and their justification. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2016; 266: 337-347
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Mielau J, Altunbay J, Heinz A. et al. Psychiatrische Zwangsmaßnahmen: Prävention und Präferenzen aus Patientenperspektive. Psychiat Prax 2017; 44: 316-322
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Mahler L, Jarchov-Jadi I, Montag C, Gallinat J. Das Weddinger Modell: Resilienz- und Ressourcenorientierung im klinischen Kontext. 1.. Auflage. Köln: Psychiatrie Verlag; 2013
  Google Scholar
• 14 Needham H, Sands N. Post-seclusion debriefing: A core nursing intervention. Perspect Psychiatr Care 2010; 46: 221-233
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Ryan R, Happell B. Learning from experience: Using action research to discover consumer needs in post-seclusion debriefing. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2009; 18: 100-107
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Sutton D, Webster S, Wilson M. Debriefing following seclusion and restraint: a summary of relevant literature. 2014. Retrieved from http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/9084
  Google Scholar
• 17 Whitecross F, Seeary A, Lee S. Measuring the impacts of seclusion on psychiatry inpatients and the effectiveness of a pilot single-session post-seclusion counselling intervention. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2013; 22: 512-521
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Duan N, Bhaumik D, Palinkas L. et al. Optimal Design and Purposeful Sampling: Complementary Methodologies for Implementation Research. Adm Policy Ment Health 2015; 42: 524-532
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Helfferich C. Die Qualität qualitativer Daten. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; 2011
  Google Scholar
• 20 Mayring P. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research; 2000 1(2).
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Faschingbauer KM, Peden-McAlpine C, Tempel W. Use of Seclusion: Finding the Voice of the Patient to Influence Practice. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 2013; 51: 32-38
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Bonner G, Wellman N. Postincident review of aggression and violence in mental health settings. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 2010; 48: 35-40
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Bonner G, Lowe T, Rawcliffe D. et al. Trauma for all: a pilot study of the subjective experience of physical restraint for mental health inpatients and staff in the UK. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2002; 9: 465-473
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Meehan T, Vermeer C, Windsor C. Patients’ perceptions of seclusion: A qualitative investigation. J Adv Nurs 2000; 31: 370-377
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Haglund K, Von Knorring L, Von Essen L. Forced medication in psychiatric care: patient experiences and nurse perceptions. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2003; 10: 65-72
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Teichert M, Schäfer I, Lincoln TM. Wo ein Wille ist, ist auch ein Weg?. Psychiat Prax 2016; 43: 101-106
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Heumann K, Bock T, Lincoln TM. Bitte macht (irgend)was! Eine bundesweite Online-Befragung Psychiatrieerfahrener zum Einsatz milderer Maßnahmen zur Vermeidung von Zwangsmaßnahmen. Psychiat Prax 2017; 44 : 85-92
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material