Sheline Y, Nelson T
Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110.
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1993;21(3):321-9.
The legal requirement to use least restrictive interventions in emergency psychiatric treatment does not stipulate whether physical restraints or medication is least restrictive. There is no current consensus about how to determine least restrictive interventions in a generalizable manner. In this study patients who were clients in a public psychiatric emergency service were anonymously surveyed and asked to state their preferences for specific interventions in a psychiatric emergency. In a choice between physical restraints versus psychotropic medication, 64 percent of clients preferred medication; 36 percent preferred seclusion or restraint. The rank order of preferred modality was 1) benzodiazepines--31 percent, 2) neuroleptics--26 percent, 3) seclusion--24 percent, 4) restraints--10 percent. The rank order of last choice was different. Patients preference is an important factor in determining the appropriate intervention in an emergency. Patient participation offers an opportunity reconcile to clinical and legal objectives, to i improve compliance, and to enhance patient and staff safety.
在紧急精神科治疗中使用限制最小的干预措施的法律要求并未规定身体约束或药物治疗哪种限制最小。目前对于如何以可推广的方式确定限制最小的干预措施尚无共识。在本研究中,对一家公共精神科急诊服务机构的患者进行了匿名调查,询问他们在精神科急诊中对特定干预措施的偏好。在身体约束与精神药物之间进行选择时,64%的患者更喜欢药物治疗;36%的患者更喜欢隔离或约束。首选方式的排序为:1)苯二氮卓类药物——31%,2)抗精神病药物——26%,3)隔离——24%,4)约束——10%。最不喜欢的选择排序则不同。患者的偏好是决定紧急情况下适当干预措施的一个重要因素。患者参与为协调临床和法律目标、提高依从性以及增强患者和工作人员安全提供了机会。