Display options
Cite
Steinert T, Flammer E. Häufigkeit von Zwangsmaßnahmen als Qualitätsindikator für psychiatrische Kliniken? [Frequency of coercive measures as a quality indicator for psychiatric hospitals?]. Nervenarzt. 2019;90(1):35-39doi: 10.1007/s00115-018-0611-4.
Steinert, T., & Flammer, E. (2019). Häufigkeit von Zwangsmaßnahmen als Qualitätsindikator für psychiatrische Kliniken? [Frequency of coercive measures as a quality indicator for psychiatric hospitals?]. Der Nervenarzt, 90(1), 35-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-018-0611-4
Steinert, T, and Flammer, E. "Häufigkeit von Zwangsmaßnahmen als Qualitätsindikator für psychiatrische Kliniken?" [Frequency of coercive measures as a quality indicator for psychiatric hospitals?]. Der Nervenarzt vol. 90,1 (2019): 35-39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-018-0611-4
Steinert T, Flammer E. Häufigkeit von Zwangsmaßnahmen als Qualitätsindikator für psychiatrische Kliniken? [Frequency of coercive measures as a quality indicator for psychiatric hospitals?]. Nervenarzt. 2019 Jan;90(1):35-39. doi: 10.1007/s00115-018-0611-4. German. PMID: 30215134.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Nervenarzt. 2019 Jan;90(1):35-39. doi: 10.1007/s00115-018-0611-4.

[Frequency of coercive measures as a quality indicator for psychiatric hospitals?].

Der Nervenarzt

[Article in German]
T Steinert, E Flammer

Affiliations

  1. Zentrum für Psychiatrie Südwürttemberg, Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie I der Universität Ulm, Weingartshofer Str. 2, 88214, Ravensburg-Weissenau, Deutschland. [email protected].
  2. Zentrum für Psychiatrie Südwürttemberg, Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie I der Universität Ulm, Weingartshofer Str. 2, 88214, Ravensburg-Weissenau, Deutschland.

PMID: 30215134 DOI: 10.1007/s00115-018-0611-4

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The percentage of patients subjected to coercive measures has been proposed as 1 of 10 quality indicators for psychiatric inpatient treatment by the German Association of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN). Internationally, there are similar recommendations and corresponding reporting systems.

METHODS: The registry of coercive measures of psychiatric hospitals in Baden-Württemberg that was established in 2015, yields the possibility to examine the appropriateness of this indicator, based on raw data of 108,863 cases in 2016. This study investigated how the indicator is influenced by patient variables and characteristics of hospital structure.

RESULTS: The percentage of cases exposed to coercive measures was strongly (r = 0.6) correlated with the percentage of involuntarily treated cases. With respect to the latter, hospitals varied widely with a range from 0.7% up to 24.1%. Specialized wards serving patients outside the catchment area with a high number of coercive measures also had a strong influence on the results of a benchmarking comparison.

CONCLUSION: The indicator is a good instrument for longitudinal evaluation of an institution; however, due to a high number of known and unknown confounding factors, it is inappropriate for the purpose of comparing psychiatric hospitals.

Keywords: Benchmarking; Coercion; Hospitals, psychiatric; Quality indicator; Registries

References

  1. Psychiatr Prax. 2007 Jan;34(1):26-33 - PubMed
  2. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2011;105(5):360-4 - PubMed
  3. Nervenarzt. 2013 Mar;84(3):350-65 - PubMed
  4. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2014 Nov;60(7):672-80 - PubMed
  5. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2016 Sep;51(9):1301-9 - PubMed
  6. Br J Psychiatry. 2016 Aug;209(2):157-61 - PubMed
  7. Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Dec 1;67(12):1321-1327 - PubMed
  8. Nervenarzt. 2017 Jul;88(7):779-786 - PubMed
  9. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Aug;4(8):619-626 - PubMed
  10. Psychiatr Prax. 2018 Aug 27;:null - PubMed
  11. Psychiatr Prax. 1998 Nov;25(6):303-9 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types