Korkeila Jyrki A, Tuohimäki Carita, Kaltiala-Heino Riittakerttu, Lehtinen Ville, Joukamaa Matti
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Nord J Psychiatry. 2002;56(5):339-45. doi: 10.1080/080394802760322105.
The prevalence of use of seclusion and restraints in psychiatric treatment has varied dramatically among institutions, according to previous studies. We investigated the factors predicting overall and "heavy use" of restrictive measures and differences in the population-based rates of use of seclusion and restraints in three university psychiatric centres in Finland (Turku, Tampere and Oulu) using a retrospective chart review. The material comprised all civil admissions to the study hospitals of working-aged people during a period of 6 months in 1996. There were significant differences among the studied centres as to the population-based level of use of seclusion and restraints. Oulu used significantly less seclusion but had a significantly higher level of use of restraints than Turku and Tampere. The individual institutions best predicted the overall use of restrictive interventions, whereas previous commitments and involuntary legal status on admission were factors predicting "heavy use" of these measures. Our results suggest that the implementation and monitoring of restrictive measures could be further harmonized.
根据以往研究,在精神科治疗中,隔离和约束措施的使用比例在不同机构间差异极大。我们通过回顾性病历审查,调查了芬兰三个大学精神科中心(图尔库、坦佩雷和奥卢)中预测限制措施总体及“大量使用”的因素,以及基于人群的隔离和约束措施使用率差异。研究材料包括1996年6个月期间研究医院收治的所有在职年龄的民事患者。在所研究的中心之间,基于人群的隔离和约束措施使用水平存在显著差异。奥卢的隔离使用显著较少,但约束措施的使用水平显著高于图尔库和坦佩雷。各机构自身最能预测限制干预措施的总体使用情况,而入院前的既往承诺和非自愿法律状态是预测这些措施“大量使用”的因素。我们的结果表明,限制措施的实施和监测可进一步统一。