ArticleDer Nervenarzt2022
[Effects of the Decision of the German Constitutional Court on mechanical restraint in 2018 : Coercive measures in the psychiatric hospitals in Baden-Wuerttemberg in 2019 compared to the years 2015-2017].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating costs of bedside assessment by a judge in each case of mechanical restraint in Germany after new legislation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Law and psychiatry-current and future perspectives.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
On 23 July 2018 the German Constitutional Court decided that mechanical restraint in psychiatric patients with 5 or 7‑point mechanical restraint lasting longer than 30 min requires a judicial authorization. On the same day, the German Association for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (DGPPN) published guidelines on the prevention of coercion and violence. Together, this can be considered as the strongest intervention to reduce coercion on a national level worldwide. The registry for coercive measures in the Federal State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, available since 2015 and comprising all 32 hospitals licensed to admit involuntary patients, has made it possible to evaluate the effect of the legal change. We analyzed the mean percentage of patients subjected to coercive measures and the mean cumulative duration of these interventions in ICD-10 diagnostic groups in psychiatric hospitals from 2015 to 2017 compared to 2019 among a total of 438,003 admissions. The percentage of patients subjected to any kind of freedom-restricting coercion (restraint or seclusion) decreased from 6.7% (average 2015-2017) to 5.8% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Effects were strongest in patients with organic (F0) and schizophrenic disorders (F2). The percentage of patients subjected to mechanical restraint decreased from 4.8% to 3.6% in 2019, and the percentage of mechanical restraints less than 30 min increased from 1.8% to 10.5%. Vice versa, the percentage of patients subjected to seclusion increased from 2.9% to 3.3%. The median cumulated duration of restraint and seclusion per affected case decreased from 12.7h to 10.9 h (median). The intervention was probably responsible for a reduction of the percentage of cases subjected to coercive measures by about 13% and a reduction of the duration of these measures per affected case by about 14%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35303128What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.