[Isolation and forced injection in the opinion of affected patients and patient care personnel. An accompanied quarter year sample].

K Schmied, K Ernst
{"title":"[Isolation and forced injection in the opinion of affected patients and patient care personnel. An accompanied quarter year sample].","authors":"K Schmied,&nbsp;K Ernst","doi":"10.1007/BF00343597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>All cases of seclusion and emergency sedation at a regional psychiatric university hospital were studied for a period of 3 months. The patients involved, and their nursing staff, were questioned on the day following the above mentioned incidents and the patients again after their remission from the exceptional state that had caused them. Every sixth patient underwent, at least once, either seclusion or emergency sedation, or both. These occurred most frequently during the first week of hospitalization, and in patients with a predominantly negative attitude. Women showed violent behaviour more often than men and also admitted to it more frequently. Seclusion was generally better accepted than emergency sedation. In less than half the cases the patients clearly rejected the past coercive measure; cases of total acceptance, however, were even less frequent, though acceptance tended to increase with remission. The authors dealt with the legal status of coercive measures. They also stressed the importance of discussing them afterwards both with patients and nursing staff in order to preserve the self-respect of all concerned.</p>","PeriodicalId":55482,"journal":{"name":"Archiv Fur Psychiatrie Und Nervenkrankheiten","volume":"233 3","pages":"211-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1983-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/BF00343597","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archiv Fur Psychiatrie Und Nervenkrankheiten","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00343597","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

All cases of seclusion and emergency sedation at a regional psychiatric university hospital were studied for a period of 3 months. The patients involved, and their nursing staff, were questioned on the day following the above mentioned incidents and the patients again after their remission from the exceptional state that had caused them. Every sixth patient underwent, at least once, either seclusion or emergency sedation, or both. These occurred most frequently during the first week of hospitalization, and in patients with a predominantly negative attitude. Women showed violent behaviour more often than men and also admitted to it more frequently. Seclusion was generally better accepted than emergency sedation. In less than half the cases the patients clearly rejected the past coercive measure; cases of total acceptance, however, were even less frequent, though acceptance tended to increase with remission. The authors dealt with the legal status of coercive measures. They also stressed the importance of discussing them afterwards both with patients and nursing staff in order to preserve the self-respect of all concerned.

[受影响患者和患者护理人员建议进行隔离和强制注射。随附的季度样本]。
对一家地区精神科大学医院的所有隔离和紧急镇静病例进行了为期3个月的研究。患者和他们的护理人员在上述事件发生后的第二天接受询问,并在患者从导致他们的异常状态缓解后再次接受询问。六分之一的患者至少接受过一次隔离或紧急镇静,或两者兼而有之。这些最常发生在住院第一周,主要发生在态度消极的患者身上。女性比男性更经常表现出暴力行为,也更频繁地承认自己有暴力行为。隔离通常比紧急镇静更容易被接受。在不到一半的案例中,患者明确拒绝了过去的强制措施;然而,完全接受的病例甚至更少,尽管接受度往往随着缓解而增加。作者论述了强制措施的法律地位。他们还强调事后与病人和护理人员讨论这些问题的重要性,以便维护所有有关人员的自尊。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信