Flammer Erich, Frank Udo, Steinert Tilman
Center for Psychiatry Suedwuerttemberg, Clinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy I, Ulm University, Ravensburg, Germany.
Center for Psychiatry Suedwuerttemberg, Ravensburg, Germany.
Front Psychiatry. 2020 Mar 5;11:146. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00146. eCollection 2020.
In Germany, people suffering from severe mental illness who have committed serious offenses and have considerably reduced or suspended criminal responsibility can be detained and treated in forensic psychiatric hospitals. In the German federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, all psychiatric hospitals including forensic psychiatric hospitals are obliged to record data on every coercive intervention and to submit them to a central registry. The objective of this study was to determine key measures for the use of seclusion and restraint and to compare them with data from the same registry on the use of coercion in general inpatient mental health care. Data on the main psychiatric diagnosis according to ICD-10, type and duration of each coercive measure and number of treated cases according to diagnoses, and cumulated number of days of treatment from all 8 forensic facilities in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg covering a catchment area with about 11 million inhabitants were collected at the treated-case-level for 3 years. 22.6% of the cases treated in 2017 in forensic psychiatric hospitals were subjected to seclusion, and 3.8% were subjected to mechanical restraint. The mean cumulated duration of seclusion episodes per affected case was 343.9 h and the mean cumulated duration of restraint episodes was 261.7 h. 13.2% of the treated cases were subjected to room confinement with a mean cumulated duration of 539.1 h per affected case. Involuntary medication was applied in 1.9% of the cases. In general psychiatry, 2.9% of the treated cases were subjected to seclusion, and 4.7% were subjected to mechanical restraint. The mean cumulated duration per affected case amounted to 32.2 h for seclusion episodes and to 37.6 h for restraint episodes. Involuntary medication was applied in 0.6% of cases. Compared to general psychiatry, mechanical restraint is used in forensic psychiatry substantially less frequently and seclusion substantially more frequently. Room confinement is used only in forensic psychiatric hospitals. Use of involuntary medication is rare. On the one hand, recorded involuntary medication comprises only clear actions against the patient's expressed will as defined by law. Psychological pressure to take medication to avoid other forms of coercion and to achieve higher levels of freedom within the facility is not recorded. On the other hand, the low numbers of clear involuntary medication probably reflect the high legal threshold for such interventions, and, consequently, efforts by staff to motivate voluntary acceptance. The long duration of freedom-restricting coercive measures in forensic psychiatry probably reflects the selection of patients at high risk of violence.
在德国,患有严重精神疾病且实施了严重犯罪行为、刑事责任大幅减轻或已被暂停的人,可被拘留在法医精神病医院接受治疗。在德国巴登 - 符腾堡州,所有精神病医院,包括法医精神病医院,都有义务记录每一次强制干预的数据,并将其提交给一个中央登记处。本研究的目的是确定使用隔离和约束的关键措施,并将其与同一登记处关于普通住院精神卫生保健中使用强制手段的数据进行比较。收集了巴登 - 符腾堡州8家法医机构在3年时间里按治疗病例级别记录的、覆盖约1100万居民集水区的以下数据:根据国际疾病分类第十版(ICD - 10)的主要精神科诊断、每项强制措施的类型和持续时间、按诊断分类的治疗病例数以及累计治疗天数。2017年在法医精神病医院接受治疗的病例中,22.6%的患者被隔离,3.8%的患者受到机械约束。每例受影响患者的隔离事件平均累计持续时间为343.9小时,约束事件的平均累计持续时间为261.7小时。13.2%的治疗病例被限制在病房,每例受影响患者的平均累计持续时间为539.1小时。1.9%的病例接受了非自愿用药。在普通精神病学中,2.9%的治疗病例被隔离,4.7%的病例受到机械约束。每例受影响患者的隔离事件平均累计持续时间为32.2小时,约束事件为37.6小时。0.6%的病例接受了非自愿用药。与普通精神病学相比,法医精神病学中机械约束的使用频率要低得多,而隔离的使用频率则要高得多。限制在病房仅在法医精神病医院使用。非自愿用药的情况很少见。一方面,记录的非自愿用药仅包括法律定义的明显违背患者明确意愿的行为。为避免其他形式的强制手段以及在医院内获得更高程度自由而施加的服药心理压力未被记录。另一方面,明显的非自愿用药数量较少可能反映了此类干预的高法律门槛,因此也反映了工作人员促使患者自愿接受治疗的努力。法医精神病学中限制自由的强制措施持续时间较长,这可能反映了对暴力风险较高患者的选择。