Cargando…

The Use of Coercive Interventions in Mental Health Care in Germany and the Netherlands. A Comparison of the Developments in Two Neighboring Countries

In this review, we compare the use of coercion in mental health care in Germany and in the Netherlands. Legal frameworks and published data on involuntary commitment, involuntary medication, seclusion, and restraint are highlighted as well as the role of guidelines, training, and attitudes held by p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Steinert, Tilman, Noorthoorn, Eric O., Mulder, Cornelis L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4173217/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25309893
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00141
_version_ 1782336145828347904
author Steinert, Tilman
Noorthoorn, Eric O.
Mulder, Cornelis L.
author_facet Steinert, Tilman
Noorthoorn, Eric O.
Mulder, Cornelis L.
author_sort Steinert, Tilman
collection PubMed
description In this review, we compare the use of coercion in mental health care in Germany and in the Netherlands. Legal frameworks and published data on involuntary commitment, involuntary medication, seclusion, and restraint are highlighted as well as the role of guidelines, training, and attitudes held by psychiatrists and the public. Legal procedures regulating involuntary admission and commitment are rather similar, and so is the percentage of involuntary admissions and the rate per 100,000 inhabitants. However, opposing trends can be observed in the use of coercive interventions during treatment, which in both countries are considered as a last resort after all other alternative approaches have failed. In the Netherlands, for a long time seclusion has been considered as preferred intervention while the use of medication by force was widely disapproved as being unnecessarily invasive. However, after increasing evidence showed that number and duration of seclusions as well as the number of aggressive incidents per admission were considerably higher than in other European countries, attitudes changed within recent years. A national program with spending of 15 million € was launched to reduce the use of seclusion, while the use of medication was facilitated. A legislation is scheduled, which will allow also outpatient coercive treatment. In Germany, the latter was never legalized. While coercive treatment in Germany was rather common for involuntarily committed patients and mechanical restraint was preferred to seclusion in most hospital as a containment measure, the decisions of the Constitutional Court in 2011 had a high impact on legislation, attitudes, and clinical practice. Though since 2013 coercive medication is approvable again under strict conditions, it is now widely perceived as very invasive and last resort. There is evidence that this change of attitudes lead to a considerable increase of the use of seclusion and restraint for some patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4173217
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41732172014-10-10 The Use of Coercive Interventions in Mental Health Care in Germany and the Netherlands. A Comparison of the Developments in Two Neighboring Countries Steinert, Tilman Noorthoorn, Eric O. Mulder, Cornelis L. Front Public Health Public Health In this review, we compare the use of coercion in mental health care in Germany and in the Netherlands. Legal frameworks and published data on involuntary commitment, involuntary medication, seclusion, and restraint are highlighted as well as the role of guidelines, training, and attitudes held by psychiatrists and the public. Legal procedures regulating involuntary admission and commitment are rather similar, and so is the percentage of involuntary admissions and the rate per 100,000 inhabitants. However, opposing trends can be observed in the use of coercive interventions during treatment, which in both countries are considered as a last resort after all other alternative approaches have failed. In the Netherlands, for a long time seclusion has been considered as preferred intervention while the use of medication by force was widely disapproved as being unnecessarily invasive. However, after increasing evidence showed that number and duration of seclusions as well as the number of aggressive incidents per admission were considerably higher than in other European countries, attitudes changed within recent years. A national program with spending of 15 million € was launched to reduce the use of seclusion, while the use of medication was facilitated. A legislation is scheduled, which will allow also outpatient coercive treatment. In Germany, the latter was never legalized. While coercive treatment in Germany was rather common for involuntarily committed patients and mechanical restraint was preferred to seclusion in most hospital as a containment measure, the decisions of the Constitutional Court in 2011 had a high impact on legislation, attitudes, and clinical practice. Though since 2013 coercive medication is approvable again under strict conditions, it is now widely perceived as very invasive and last resort. There is evidence that this change of attitudes lead to a considerable increase of the use of seclusion and restraint for some patients. Frontiers Media S.A. 2014-09-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4173217/ /pubmed/25309893 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00141 Text en Copyright © 2014 Steinert, Noorthoorn and Mulder. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Public Health
Steinert, Tilman
Noorthoorn, Eric O.
Mulder, Cornelis L.
The Use of Coercive Interventions in Mental Health Care in Germany and the Netherlands. A Comparison of the Developments in Two Neighboring Countries
title The Use of Coercive Interventions in Mental Health Care in Germany and the Netherlands. A Comparison of the Developments in Two Neighboring Countries
title_full The Use of Coercive Interventions in Mental Health Care in Germany and the Netherlands. A Comparison of the Developments in Two Neighboring Countries
title_fullStr The Use of Coercive Interventions in Mental Health Care in Germany and the Netherlands. A Comparison of the Developments in Two Neighboring Countries
title_full_unstemmed The Use of Coercive Interventions in Mental Health Care in Germany and the Netherlands. A Comparison of the Developments in Two Neighboring Countries
title_short The Use of Coercive Interventions in Mental Health Care in Germany and the Netherlands. A Comparison of the Developments in Two Neighboring Countries
title_sort use of coercive interventions in mental health care in germany and the netherlands. a comparison of the developments in two neighboring countries
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4173217/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25309893
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00141
work_keys_str_mv AT steinerttilman theuseofcoerciveinterventionsinmentalhealthcareingermanyandthenetherlandsacomparisonofthedevelopmentsintwoneighboringcountries
AT noorthoornerico theuseofcoerciveinterventionsinmentalhealthcareingermanyandthenetherlandsacomparisonofthedevelopmentsintwoneighboringcountries
AT muldercornelisl theuseofcoerciveinterventionsinmentalhealthcareingermanyandthenetherlandsacomparisonofthedevelopmentsintwoneighboringcountries
AT steinerttilman useofcoerciveinterventionsinmentalhealthcareingermanyandthenetherlandsacomparisonofthedevelopmentsintwoneighboringcountries
AT noorthoornerico useofcoerciveinterventionsinmentalhealthcareingermanyandthenetherlandsacomparisonofthedevelopmentsintwoneighboringcountries
AT muldercornelisl useofcoerciveinterventionsinmentalhealthcareingermanyandthenetherlandsacomparisonofthedevelopmentsintwoneighboringcountries