RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Even if coercive measures are widely applied in psychiatry and have numerous well-known drawbacks, there is limited known on the agreement among mental healthcare professionals' opinions on their use. In a questionnaire study using standardized scenarios, we investigated variation in staff opinions on coercion. METHODS: In a web-based survey distributed to staff at three psychiatry hospitals, respondents were asked to consider if and what coercion to use by introducing two hypothetical scenarios involving involuntary psychiatric admission and in-hospital coercion. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two out of 601 invited staff members responded to the survey (Response Rate = 22%). There was large variation in participating staff members' opinions on how to best manage critical situations and what coercive measures were warranted. In the first scenario, 57% of respondents (n = 76) believed that the patient should be involuntarily admitted to hospital while the remaining respondents believed that the situation should be managed otherwise. Regarding the second scenario, 62% of respondents responded that some in-hospital coercion should be used. The majority of respondents believed that colleagues would behave similarly (60%) or with a tendency towards more coercion use (34%). Male gender, being nursing staff and having less coercion experience predicted being less inclined to choose involuntary hospital admission. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of variation in coercion use. This study suggests that this variation persists despite staff members being confronted with the same standardized situations. There is a need for evidence-based further guidance to minimize coercion in critical mental healthcare situations.
Asunto(s)
Actitud del Personal de Salud , Coerción , Internamiento Obligatorio del Enfermo Mental , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Persona de Mediana Edad , Hospitales Psiquiátricos/estadística & datos numéricos , Trastornos Mentales/terapia , Trastornos Mentales/psicologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to test the intra-assessor and interassessor reliability of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) for categorising the information in the claim letters in a sample of Danish patient compensation claims. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We used a random sample of 140 compensation cases completed by the Danish Patient Compensation Association that were filed in the field of acute medicine at Danish hospitals from 2007 to 2018. Four assessors were trained in using the HCAT manual before assessing the claim letters independently. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intra-assessor and interassessor reliability was tested at domain, problem category and subcategory levels of the HCAT. We also investigated the reliability of ratings on the level of harm and of the descriptive details contained in the claim letters. RESULTS: The HCAT was reliable for identifying problem categories, with reliability scores ranging from 0.55 to 0.99. Reliability was lower when coding the 'severity' of the problem. Interassessor reliability was generally lower than intra-assessor reliability. The categories of 'quality' and 'safety' were the least reliable of the seven HCAT problem categories. Reliability at the subcategory level was generally satisfactory, with only a few subcategories having poor reliability. Reliability was at least moderate when coding the stage of care, the complainant and the staff group involved. However, the coding of 'level of harm' was found to be unreliable (intrareliability 0.06; inter-reliability 0.29). CONCLUSION: Overall, HCAT was found to be a reliable tool for categorising problem types in patient compensation claims.