Heilbrun K, Golloway G G, Shoukry V E, Gustafson D
Department of Psychiatry, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond 23298, USA.
Psychiatr Q. 1995 Summer;66(2):133-45. doi: 10.1007/BF02238860.
The current study examines the use of physical control (seclusion and restraint) in a sample of patients hospitalized in a public mental hospital during 1989. A total of 243 patient records involving physical control were examined; of these, 124 had been civilly committed and the remaining 119 were forensic (Incompetent to Stand Trial or Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). Some 870 physical control events occurred in the sample, a rate that is intermediate when compared with other facilities described in the literature. Seclusion was employed most often (46% of events), with the combination of seclusion and restraint used in 32% of events and the remaining 22% of physical control events being restraint. Seclusion tended to be used more often with civilly committed patients, with restraint more frequently employed with forensic patients. Forensic patients differed from civil subjects in their greater frequency of threats, agitation, and verbal hostility. However, civil patients were more frequently aggressive toward others and destructive of property. These findings are discussed in the context of previous evidence also describing forensic patients as being perceived as more dangerous, but behaving in a fashion no more physically aggressive than civil patients.
本研究调查了1989年期间在一家公立精神病院住院的患者样本中身体约束措施(隔离和约束)的使用情况。共检查了243份涉及身体约束措施的患者记录;其中,124例是民事收治,其余119例是法医鉴定病例(无受审能力或因精神错乱而无罪)。该样本中约发生了870起身体约束事件,与文献中描述的其他机构相比,这一发生率处于中等水平。隔离措施使用最为频繁(占事件的46%),隔离和约束相结合的情况占32%,其余22%的身体约束事件为单纯约束。隔离措施往往更多地用于民事收治患者,而约束措施则更频繁地用于法医鉴定病例患者。法医鉴定病例患者与民事收治患者的不同之处在于,前者威胁、激动和言语敌意的发生频率更高。然而,民事收治患者对他人更具攻击性,对财产更具破坏性。此前也有证据表明,法医鉴定病例患者被认为更危险,但在身体攻击行为方面并不比民事收治患者更严重,本文在这一背景下对这些发现进行了讨论。