Clinician attitude and perspective on the use of coercive measures in clinical practice from tertiary care mental health establishment – A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Use of coercive measures in mental health care is an important issue for research. There are scarce data available on perception and attitudes toward coercion among Indian psychiatrists. AIMS: This study aims to study psychiatrists' attitude and perspectives on the use of coercive measure in clinical practice against the background of family and patients' opinion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at the Department of Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India. Psychiatrist in charge of the inpatients was asked about their general opinion on coercion and was administered Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale questionnaire. Findings were compared to previously published studies on patients' opinion and family opinion in the same sample. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Coercion proved to be a common measure applied in nearly 70% of the patients studied. The 189 psychiatrists participating in the study almost all perceived coercion as care, protection and safety, and as protection from dangerous situations. About 66% of psychiatrists perceived physical and chemical restraint (sedation) as necessary and acceptable in acute emergency care. One-third of the psychiatrists felt their patients lost autonomy, dignity, and the possibility of interpersonal contact. The same amount agreed that some patients could have been treated with less restriction and fewer coercive measures. CONCLUSION: Psychiatrists felt that physical and chemical restraints are necessary and acceptable in acute emergencies. Most psychiatrists considered coercion as a caring protective and safety attitude but also acknowledged its potential negative impact on patient dignity and therapeutic relationships.