Lev Hasharon Mental Health Center, POB 9000, Netanya, Israel.
Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tal Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Psychiatr Q. 2018 Mar;89(1):191-199. doi: 10.1007/s11126-017-9524-9.
The practice of mechanically restraining psychiatric patients is constantly under debate, and staff attitudes are considered a central factor influencing restraining practices. The aim of this study was to explore associations between psychiatric staff members' presence and participation in incidences of restraint and attitudes towards mechanical restraints.
Staff members (psychiatrists, nurses, paramedical staff; N = 143 working in a government psychiatric hospital in Israel) completed a questionnaire including personal information, participation in incidents of restraint and attitudes towards mechanical restraints. Items were categorized into the following categories: security and care; humiliation and offending; control; order; education and punishment.
Compared to those who were not present during restraint, staff members who were present agreed significantly less with statements indicating that restraints are humiliating and offending and agreed more with statements indicating that restraints are used primarily for security and care (p < .05). Among those present in incidences of restraint, staff members who physically participated in restraint agreed significantly more with statements indicating that restraints are a means for security, care and order, and less with statements indicating restraints are humiliating and offending, compared to those present but not physically participating in restraint (p < .05).
These findings highlight the importance of proximity of staff members to incidences of restraints. This may have implications in understanding the professional and social discourse concerning mechanical restraints.
机械约束精神病患者的做法一直存在争议,而工作人员的态度被认为是影响约束行为的一个核心因素。本研究旨在探讨精神病院工作人员在约束事件中的存在和参与情况与他们对机械约束的态度之间的关联。
工作人员(以色列政府精神病院的医生、护士、辅助医务人员;N=143 人)填写了一份问卷,内容包括个人信息、参与约束事件的情况以及对机械约束的态度。项目分为以下几类:安全与护理、侮辱与冒犯、控制、秩序、教育与惩罚。
与不在场的工作人员相比,在场的工作人员对表明约束具有侮辱性和冒犯性的说法明显不同意,而对表明约束主要用于安全和护理的说法则表示同意(p<.05)。在参与约束事件的工作人员中,与在场但未实际参与约束的工作人员相比,实际参与约束的工作人员更同意表明约束是安全、护理和秩序手段的说法,而对表明约束具有侮辱性和冒犯性的说法则表示不同意(p<.05)。
这些发现强调了工作人员接近约束事件的重要性。这可能对理解有关机械约束的专业和社会讨论具有影响。