A 15-year national follow-up: legislation is not enough to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint
- First Online:
- 406 Downloads
Seclusion and restraint are frequent but controversial coercive measures used in psychiatric treatment. Legislative efforts have started to emerge to control the use of these measures in many countries. In the present study, the nationwide trends in the use of seclusion and restraint were investigated in Finland over a 15-year span which was characterised by legislative changes aiming to clarify and restrict the use of these measures.
The data were collected during a predetermined week in 1990, 1991, 1994, 1998 and 2004, using a structured postal survey of Finnish psychiatric hospitals. The numbers of inpatients during the study weeks were obtained from the National Hospital Discharge Register.
The total number of the secluded and restrained patients declined as did the number of all inpatients during the study weeks, but the risk of being secluded or restrained remained the same over time when compared to the first study year. The duration of the restraint incidents did not change, but the duration of seclusion increased. A regional variation was found in the use of coercive measures.
Legislative changes solely cannot reduce the use of seclusion and restraint or change the prevailing treatment cultures connected with these measures. The use of seclusion and restraint should be vigilantly monitored and ethical questions should be under continuous scrutiny.
Key wordsseclusion restraint coercion legislation
- 1.Act on the Status and Rights of patients (2004) So 422. In: Suomen Laki II [Finnish Law II]. Talentum Media Oy, Helsinki, pp 1621–1624Google Scholar
- 5.Council of Europe (1994) Recommendation 1235 on psychiatry and human rights. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
- 6.Council of Europe (2004) Recommendation Rec(2004)10 of the committee of ministers to member states concerning the protection of the human rights and dignity of persons with mental disorder and its explanatory memorandum. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
- 15.Korkeila J (1998) Perspectives on the public psychiatric services in Finland. Stakes, research report 93. Gummerus Printing, Jyväskylä, FinlandGoogle Scholar
- 18.McCrue RE, Urcuyo L, Lilu Y (2004) Reducing restraint use in a public psychiatric inpatient service. J Behav Health Serv Res 31:217–224Google Scholar
- 19.Mental Health Act (2004) So 409. In: Suomen Laki II. [Finnish Law II]. Talentum Media Oy, Helsinki, pp 1598–1605Google Scholar
- 22.Pirkola S, Sohlman B (eds) (2005) Atlas of mental health – statistics from Finland. National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health (Stakes), Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
- 23.Sailas E, Fenton M (2000) Seclusion and restraint for people with serious mental illnesses (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD001163Google Scholar
- 27.World Psychiatric Association (1996) Declaration of Madrid. 10th World Congress of Psychiatry, Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar