Post-incident debriefing for people with schizophrenia after coercive measures.

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Maritta Välimäki, Jaakko Varpula, Tella Lantta
{"title":"Post-incident debriefing for people with schizophrenia after coercive measures.","authors":"Maritta Välimäki, Jaakko Varpula, Tella Lantta","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD014487.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Schizophrenia and schizophrenia-type psychosis, severe mental illnesses globally impacting millions, present a dual challenge with their characteristic positive and negative symptoms, economic burdens, and heightened susceptibility to coercive measures. These measures, including seclusion and restraint, raise ethical concerns despite their intent to ensure safety, particularly during acute stages marked by violent behaviour. Addressing this backdrop, the significance of post-incident debriefing as an intervention to curtail the use and duration of coercive measures and alleviate the negative psychological effects of using these methods in managing individuals with schizophrenia is underscored. The employment of coercive measures, such as physical restraint and seclusion, to manage aggressive behaviour in psychiatric settings necessitates a thorough examination of their ethical implications and potential psychological harm. Although post-incident debriefing is recommended, the limited evidence supporting its efficacy and concerns about its impact on psychological well-being prompt a comprehensive analysis of existing literature.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the effects of post-incident debriefing after coercive measures for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-type psychosis.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>The Information Specialist conducted searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Specialised Register (compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I) on 28 February 2023. We also inspected the references of all identified studies.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of post-incident debriefing after coercive measures in adult psychiatric care with participants diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-type psychosis, encompassing various clinical states and stages. We considered studies if the post-incident debriefing was the only intervention randomised.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>At least two authors inspected the citations, selected studies, extracted data and conducted quality appraisal. We calculated a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We assessed study risk of bias and used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included one study; the total number of participants randomised was 422, of which 109 participated. Participants were between 18 and 65 years old with psychotic disorder, at the acute stage of their illness, and had experienced at least one coercive measure during their hospital stay. The study included a standardised post-coercion review that was conducted until the discharge of the participant. For the primary outcome, we found that there may be an increased risk of being secluded again for those receiving post-incident debriefing compared to treatment as usual, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.33; 1 study, 109 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No evidence was found that post-incident debriefing had an effect in reducing peritraumatic distress (MD -1.62, 95% CI -7.47 to 4.23; 1 study, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or increasing satisfaction with care (perceived coercion: MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.59 to 0.85; 1 study, 109 participants; coercion experience: MD -1.61, 95% CI -13.36 to 10.14; 1 study, 109 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to treatment as usual. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of post-incident debriefing on these outcomes. No usable data were available for change in patient behaviour or adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Considering the available evidence, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions that post-incident debriefing after coercive measures is effective for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-type psychosis. Further high-quality studies are warranted to evaluate the effects of post-incident debriefing in psychiatric inpatient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"5 ","pages":"CD014487"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12107513/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014487.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Schizophrenia and schizophrenia-type psychosis, severe mental illnesses globally impacting millions, present a dual challenge with their characteristic positive and negative symptoms, economic burdens, and heightened susceptibility to coercive measures. These measures, including seclusion and restraint, raise ethical concerns despite their intent to ensure safety, particularly during acute stages marked by violent behaviour. Addressing this backdrop, the significance of post-incident debriefing as an intervention to curtail the use and duration of coercive measures and alleviate the negative psychological effects of using these methods in managing individuals with schizophrenia is underscored. The employment of coercive measures, such as physical restraint and seclusion, to manage aggressive behaviour in psychiatric settings necessitates a thorough examination of their ethical implications and potential psychological harm. Although post-incident debriefing is recommended, the limited evidence supporting its efficacy and concerns about its impact on psychological well-being prompt a comprehensive analysis of existing literature.

Objectives: To investigate the effects of post-incident debriefing after coercive measures for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-type psychosis.

Search methods: The Information Specialist conducted searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Specialised Register (compiled from searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I) on 28 February 2023. We also inspected the references of all identified studies.

Selection criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of post-incident debriefing after coercive measures in adult psychiatric care with participants diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-type psychosis, encompassing various clinical states and stages. We considered studies if the post-incident debriefing was the only intervention randomised.

Data collection and analysis: At least two authors inspected the citations, selected studies, extracted data and conducted quality appraisal. We calculated a standard estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We assessed study risk of bias and used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.

Main results: We included one study; the total number of participants randomised was 422, of which 109 participated. Participants were between 18 and 65 years old with psychotic disorder, at the acute stage of their illness, and had experienced at least one coercive measure during their hospital stay. The study included a standardised post-coercion review that was conducted until the discharge of the participant. For the primary outcome, we found that there may be an increased risk of being secluded again for those receiving post-incident debriefing compared to treatment as usual, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.33; 1 study, 109 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No evidence was found that post-incident debriefing had an effect in reducing peritraumatic distress (MD -1.62, 95% CI -7.47 to 4.23; 1 study, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or increasing satisfaction with care (perceived coercion: MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.59 to 0.85; 1 study, 109 participants; coercion experience: MD -1.61, 95% CI -13.36 to 10.14; 1 study, 109 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to treatment as usual. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of post-incident debriefing on these outcomes. No usable data were available for change in patient behaviour or adverse effects.

Authors' conclusions: Considering the available evidence, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions that post-incident debriefing after coercive measures is effective for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-type psychosis. Further high-quality studies are warranted to evaluate the effects of post-incident debriefing in psychiatric inpatient care.

对精神分裂症患者采取强制措施后的事后汇报。
背景:精神分裂症和精神分裂症型精神病是影响全球数百万人的严重精神疾病,由于其特有的阳性和阴性症状、经济负担和对强制措施的高度易感性,呈现出双重挑战。这些措施,包括隔离和约束,尽管其目的是确保安全,特别是在以暴力行为为标志的急性阶段,但引起了道德问题。在此背景下,强调了事件后汇报作为一种干预措施的重要性,以减少强制措施的使用和持续时间,并减轻使用这些方法管理精神分裂症患者的负面心理影响。采用强制措施,如身体约束和隔离,来管理精神病院的攻击行为,必须彻底审查其道德影响和潜在的心理伤害。虽然建议进行事后汇报,但支持其有效性的有限证据以及对其对心理健康影响的担忧促使对现有文献进行全面分析。目的:探讨对精神分裂症或精神分裂症型精神病患者实施强制措施后进行事后述情的效果。检索方法:信息专家于2023年2月28日检索了Cochrane精神分裂症专业注册表(检索自CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、PubMed、CINAHL、PsycINFO、ClinicalTrials.gov、WHO ICTRP、ISRCTN、ProQuest Dissertations和Theses A&I)。我们还检查了所有确定的研究的参考文献。选择标准:我们纳入了所有的随机对照试验(RCTs),在成人精神科护理中,被诊断为精神分裂症或精神分裂症型精神病的参与者在强制措施后进行事后述评,包括不同的临床状态和阶段。如果事后述职是唯一随机的干预措施,我们会考虑这些研究。数据收集和分析:至少有两位作者检查引文,选择研究,提取数据并进行质量评估。我们计算了二元结局的风险比(RR)及其95%置信区间(CI)的标准估计值,以及连续结局的95%置信区间的平均差(MD)。我们评估了研究的偏倚风险,并使用GRADE方法创建了一个结果总结表。主要结果:纳入1项研究;随机分配的参与者总数为422人,其中109人参加了研究。参与者年龄在18至65岁之间,患有精神障碍,处于疾病的急性阶段,并且在住院期间至少经历过一次强制措施。该研究包括一项标准化的强迫后评估,该评估一直持续到参与者出院。对于主要结局,我们发现,与常规治疗相比,接受事件后述情的患者再次被隔离的风险可能增加,但证据非常不确定(RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.74至2.33;1项研究,109名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。没有证据表明事后述情对减少创伤周围窘迫有影响(MD -1.62, 95% CI -7.47 - 4.23;1项研究,82名参与者;极低确定性证据)或提高护理满意度(感知强迫:MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.59至0.85;1项研究,109名参与者;强迫经历:MD -1.61, 95% CI -13.36 ~ 10.14;1项研究,109名参与者;非常低确定性证据)与常规治疗相比。关于事后汇报对这些结果的影响,证据是非常不确定的。没有关于患者行为改变或不良反应的可用数据。作者的结论:考虑到现有的证据,不可能得出明确的结论,即强制措施后的事后询问对精神分裂症或精神分裂症型精神病患者有效。需要进一步的高质量研究来评估事后述职对精神科住院病人护理的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信