Tonje Lossius Husum

Staff attitudes and thoughts about the use of coercion in acute psychiatric wards.

PurposePrevious research has shown considerable differences in how often coercive measures are used in mental health care between groups of patients, institutions and geographical areas. Staff attitudes towards the use of coercion have been put forward as a factor that may influence these differences.MethodThis study investigates the attitudes to coercion in 651 staff members within 33 Norwegian acute psychiatric wards. The newly developed Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale was used to measure staff attitudes.ResultsMultilevel analysis showed that there was significant variance among wards, estimated to be about 8–11% of the total variance on three scales.ConclusionsDespite substantial differences in attitudes among wards, most of the variance could be attributed to individual staff level factors. Hence, it is likely that staff attitudes are influenced, to a large extent, by each individual staff member’s personality and values.

The Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale (SACS): Reliability, validity and feasibility

OBJECTIVES Staff attitudes to the use of coercion are assumed to be a predictive factor for how much coercion is used in mental health care. The aim of this project has been to develop a questionnaire to measure staff attitudes to coercion. The development of the questionnaire is part of a broader project to investigate if staff attitudes to coercion influence how much coercion is actually used in mental health care. METHOD A 15-item questionnaire has been developed through a process that included item constructing and sampling, a pilot study and testing reliability and validity. The questionnaire has been tested on a sample of 215 staff members from 15 acute and sub-acute psychiatric wards in Norway. Descriptive statistics and Cronbach Alpha were used to examine the psychometric properties of the items, and principal component analysis was used to analyse the dimensional structure. RESULTS A model with three attitudes was found based on principal component analysis and clinical considerations. The three attitudes have been named: Coercion as offending (critical attitude) - the view of coercion as offensive towards patients; Coercion as care and security (pragmatic attitude) - the view of coercion as needed for care and security, and Coercion as treatment (positive attitude) - the view of coercion as a treatment intervention. CONCLUSION A 15-item questionnaire to measure staff attitudes to coercion has been developed and named the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale (SACS). The questionnaire has shown good reliability, validity and feasibility.

Ethical challenges when using coercion in mental healthcare A systematic literature review

Background: To better understand the kinds of ethical challenges that emerge when using coercion in mental healthcare, and the importance of these ethical challenges, this article presents a systematic review of scientific literature. Methods: A systematic search in the databases MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Cinahl, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Knowledge was carried out. The search terms derived from the population, intervention, comparison/setting and outcome. A total of 22 studies were included. Ethical considerations: The review is conducted according to the Vancouver Protocol. Results: There are few studies that study ethical challenges when using coercion in an explicit way. However, promoting the patient’s best interest is the most important justification for coercion. Patient autonomy is a fundamental challenge facing any use of coercion, and some kind of autonomy infringement is a key aspect of the concept of coercion. The concepts of coercion and autonomy and the relations between them are very complex. When coercion is used, a primary ethical challenge is to assess the balance between promoting good (beneficence) and inflicting harm (maleficence). In the included studies, findings explicitly related to justice are few. Some studies focus on moral distress experienced by the healthcare professionals using coercion. Conclusion: There is a lack of literature explicitly addressing ethical challenges related to the use of coercion in mental healthcare. It is essential for healthcare personnel to develop a strong awareness of which ethical challenges they face in connection with the use of coercion, as well as challenges related to justice. How to address ethical challenges in ways that prevent illegitimate paternalism and strengthen beneficent treatment and care and trust in connection with the use of coercion is a ‘clinical must’. By developing a more refined and rich language describing ethical challenges, clinicians may be better equipped to prevent coercion and the accompanying moral distress.

Four Reasons Why Assisted Dying Should Not Be Offered for Depression

Recently, several authors have argued that assisted dying may be ethically appropriate when requested by a person who suffers from serious depression unresponsive to treatment. We here present four arguments to the contrary. First, the arguments made by proponents of assisted dying rely on notions of “treatment-resistant depression” that are problematic. Second, an individual patient suffering from depression may not be justified in believing that chances of recovery are minimal. Third, the therapeutic significance of hope must be acknowledged; when mental healthcare opens up the door to admitting hopelessness, there is a danger of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Finally, proponents of assisted dying in mental healthcare overlook the dangers posed to mental-health services by the institutionalization of assisted dying.

Between authoritarian and dialogical approaches: Attitudes and opinions on coercion among professionals in mental health and addiction care in Norway

More knowledge is needed on how to reduce the prevalence of formal and informal coercion in Norwegian mental health care. To explore possible reasons for the widespread differences in coercive practice in psychiatry and drug addiction treatment in Norway, and the poor compliance to change initiatives, we performed a nationwide survey. Six vignettes from concrete and realistic clinical situations where coercive measures were among the alternative courses of action, and where the difference between authoritarian (paternalistic) and dialogical (user participation) practices was explicitly delineated, were presented in an electronic questionnaire distributed to five groups of professionals: psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, other professionals and auxiliary treatment staff. Non-coercive dialogical resolutions were more likely than coercive authoritative. However, there is a clear professional hierarchy with regard to authoritarian approaches, with the psychiatrists on top, followed by nurses and other professionals, and with psychologists as the least authoritarian. The majority of the respondents sometimes prefer actions that are illegal, which suggests that individual opinions about coercion often overrule legislation. The variation between and within professional groups in attitudes and opinions on coercion is extensive, and may account for some of the hitherto meagre results of two ministerial action plans for coercion reduction.

Staff’s normative attitudes towards coercion: the role of moral doubt and professional context—a cross-sectional survey study

BackgroundThe use of coercion is morally problematic and requires an ongoing critical reflection. We wondered if not knowing or being uncertain whether coercion is morally right or justified (i.e. experiencing moral doubt) is related to professionals’ normative attitudes regarding the use of coercion.MethodsThis paper describes an explorative statistical analysis based on a cross-sectional survey across seven wards in three Norwegian mental health care institutions.ResultsDescriptive analyses showed that in general the 379 respondents a) were not so sure whether coercion should be seen as offending, b) agreed with the viewpoint that coercion is needed for care and security, and c) slightly disagreed that coercion could be seen as treatment. Staff did not report high rates of moral doubt related to the use of coercion, although most of them agreed there will never be a single answer to the question ‘What is the right thing to do?’.Bivariate analyses showed that the more they experienced general moral doubt and relative doubt, the more one thought that coercion is offending. Especially psychologists were critical towards coercion. We found significant differences among ward types. Respondents with decisional responsibility for coercion and leadership responsibility saw coercion less as treatment. Frequent experience with coercion was related to seeing coercion more as care and security.ConclusionsThis study showed that experiencing moral doubt is related to some one’s normative attitude towards coercion. Future research could investigate whether moral case deliberation increases professionals’ experience of moral doubt and whether this will evoke more critical thinking and increase staff’s curiosity for alternatives to coercion.