Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Published in: Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 9/2011

01-09-2011 | Original Paper

Staff attitudes and thoughts about the use of coercion in acute psychiatric wards

Authors: Tonje Lossius Husum, Johan Haakon Bjørngaard, Arnstein Finset, Torleif Ruud

Published in: Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology | Issue 9/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Previous research has shown considerable differences in how often coercive measures are used in mental health care between groups of patients, institutions and geographical areas. Staff attitudes towards the use of coercion have been put forward as a factor that may influence these differences.

Method

This study investigates the attitudes to coercion in 651 staff members within 33 Norwegian acute psychiatric wards. The newly developed Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale was used to measure staff attitudes.

Results

Multilevel analysis showed that there was significant variance among wards, estimated to be about 8–11% of the total variance on three scales.

Conclusions

Despite substantial differences in attitudes among wards, most of the variance could be attributed to individual staff level factors. Hence, it is likely that staff attitudes are influenced, to a large extent, by each individual staff member’s personality and values.
Literature
1.
Hoyer G (2008) Involuntary hospitalization in contemporary mental health care. Some (still) unanswered questions. J Mental Health 17(3):281–292CrossRef
2.
3.
Salize HJ, Dressing H (2004) Epidemiology of involuntary placement of mentally ill people across the European Union. Br J Psychiatry 184:163–168PubMedCrossRef
4.
Bowers L, van der Werf B, Vokkolainen A, Muir-Cochrane E, Allan T, Alexander J (2007) International variation in containment measures for disturbed psychiatric inpatients: a comparative questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud 44(3):357–364PubMedCrossRef
5.
Korkeila JA, Tuohimaki C, Kaltiala-Heino R, Lehtinen V, Joukamaa M (2002) Predicting use of coercive measures in Finland. Nord J Psychiatry 56(5):339–345PubMedCrossRef
6.
Okin RL (1985) Variation among state hospitals in use of seclusion and restraint. Hosp Community Psychiatry 36(6):648–652PubMed
7.
Carpenter MD, Hannon VR, McCleery G, Wanderling JA (1988) Variations in seclusion and restraint practices by hospital location. Hosp Community Psychiatry 39(4):418–423PubMed
8.
Hoyer G, Kjellin L, Engberg M, Kaltiala-Heino R, Nilstun T, Sigurjonsdottir M et al (2002) Paternalism and autonomy: a presentation of a Nordic study on the use of coercion in the mental health care system. Int J Law Psychiatry 25(2):93–108PubMedCrossRef
9.
Kallert TW, Glockner M, Onchev G, Raboch J, Karastergiou A, Solomon Z et al (2005) The EUNOMIA project on coercion in psychiatry: study design and preliminary data. World Psychiatry 4(3):168–172PubMed
10.
Parker C (2007) Developing mental health policy: a human rights perspective. In: Knapp M, McDavid D, Mossialos E, Thornicroft G (eds) Mental Health Policy and Practice across Europe: the future direction of mental health care. Open University Press, PA, pp 308–335
11.
WHO (2005) WHO resource book on mental health, human rights and legislation. Stop exclusion, dare to care. WHO Library cataloguing in publication data. World Health Organization, Geneva
12.
Kjellin L, Ostman O, Ostman M (2008) Compulsory psychiatric care in Sweden—development 1979–2002 and area variation. Int J Law Psychiatry 31(1):51–59PubMedCrossRef
13.
Steinert T, Lepping P, Baranyai R, Hoffmann M, Leherr H (2005) Compulsory admission and treatment in schizophrenia: a study of ethical attitudes in four European countries. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 40(8):635–641PubMedCrossRef
14.
Olofsson B, Norberg A (2001) Experiences of coercion in psychiatric care as narrated by patients, nurses and physicians. J Adv Nurs 33(1):89–97PubMedCrossRef
15.
Martin V, Kuster W, Baur M, Bohnet U, Hermelink G, Knopp M et al (2007) Incidence of coercive measures as an indicator of quality in psychiatric hospitals Problems of data recording and processing, preliminary results of a benchmarking study. Psychiatr Prax 34(1):26–33PubMedCrossRef
16.
Bindman J, Reid Y, Szmukler G, Tiller J, Thornicroft G, Leese M (2005) Perceived coercion at admission to psychiatric hospital and engagement with follow-up—a cohort study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 40(2):160–166PubMedCrossRef
17.
Hoyer G, Lidz CW, Engberg M, Kaltiala-Heino R, Kjellin L, Sigurjonsdottir M (2002) Measurements of perceived coercion; methodological problems. Eur Psychiatry 17:89SCrossRef
18.
Iversen KI, Hoyer G, Sexton H, Gronli OK (2002) Perceived coercion among patients admitted to acute wards in Norway. Nord J Psychiatry 56(6):433–439CrossRef
19.
Alem A, Jacobsson L, Lynoe N, Kohn R, Kullgren G (2002) Attitudes and practices among Ethiopian health care professionals in psychiatry regarding compulsory treatment. Int J Law Psychiatry 25(6):599–610PubMedCrossRef
20.
Bowers L, Alexander J, Simpson A, Ryan C, Carr-Walker P (2004) Cultures of psychiatry and the professional socialization process: the case of containment methods for disturbed patients. Nurse Educ Today 24(6):435–442PubMedCrossRef
21.
Brooks RA (2006) US Psychiatrists’ beliefs and wants about involuntary civil commitment grounds. Int J Law Psychiatry 29(1):13–21PubMedCrossRef
22.
Klinge V (1994) Staff opinions about seclusion and restraint at a state forensic hospital. Hosp Community Psychiatr 45(2):138–141
23.
Kullgren G, Jacobsson L, Lynoe N, Kohn R (1996) Practices and attitudes among Swedish psychiatrists regarding the ethics of compulsory treatment. Acta Psychiatr Scand 93(5):389–396PubMedCrossRef
24.
Lepping P, Steinert T, Gebhardt RP, Rottgers HR (2004) Attitudes of mental health professionals and lay-people towards involuntary admission and treatment in England and Germany—a questionnaire analysis. Eur Psychiatry 19(2):91–95PubMedCrossRef
25.
Wynn R (2004) Restraint and seclusion in a Norwegian university psychiatric hospital. University in Tromsø, Tromsø
26.
Bohner G, Wänke M (2002) Attitudes an attitude change. Psychology Press, UK
27.
Bråten S (1973) Model monopoly and communication: systems theoretical notes on democratization. Acta Sociol 16(2):98–107CrossRef
28.
Leyland A, Goldsted H (2001) Multilevel modelling of health statistics. Wiley, Chichester
29.
Wynn R (2003) Staff’s attitudes to the use of restraint and seclusion in a Norwegian university psychiatric hospital. Nord J Psychiatry 57(6):453–459PubMedCrossRef
30.
Klimitz H, Uhlemann H, Fahndrich E (1998) Do we use restraints too often? Indication, frequency and conditions of restraints on a general psychiatric unit. Psychiatr Prax 25(5):235–239PubMed
31.
Wing JK, Beevor AS, Curtis RH, Park SB, Hadden S, Burns A (1998) Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Research and development. Br J Psychiatry 172:11–18PubMedCrossRef
32.
Husum TL, Finset A, Ruud T (2008) The Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale (SACS): reliability, validity and feasibility. Int J Law Psychiatry 31(5):417–422PubMedCrossRef
33.
Hox J (2002) Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. Laurence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers, NJ
34.
Bowers L, Nijman H, Simpson A, Jones J (2010) The relationship between leadership, teamworking, structure, burnout and attitude to patients on acute psychiatric wards. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol
35.
Falkum E, Forde R (2001) Paternalism, patient autonomy, and moral deliberation in the physician–patient relationship. Attitudes among Norwegian physicians. Soc Sci Med 52(2):239–248PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Staff attitudes and thoughts about the use of coercion in acute psychiatric wards
Authors
Tonje Lossius Husum
Johan Haakon Bjørngaard
Arnstein Finset
Torleif Ruud
Publication date
01-09-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology / Issue 9/2011
Print ISSN: 0933-7954
Electronic ISSN: 1433-9285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-010-0259-2

Other articles of this Issue 9/2011

Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 9/2011 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Perceived racism, medication adherence, and hospital admission in African-Caribbean patients with psychosis in the United Kingdom

Original Paper

Non-fatal suicidal behaviour in Padua, Italy, in two different periods: 1992–1996 and 2002–2006

Original Paper

A cross-cultural investigation of suicidal behavior and attitudes in Austrian and Turkish medical students

Original Paper

Family violence and its ‘adversity package’: a community survey of family violence and adverse mental outcomes among young people

Original Paper

Vulnerability, life events and depression amongst Moslem Malaysian women: comparing those married and those divorced or separated

Original Paper

Psychiatric symptoms and histories among people detained in police cells