病人虐待与创伤:精神卫生领域隔离与约束规定的政策分析

H. Peterson
{"title":"病人虐待与创伤:精神卫生领域隔离与约束规定的政策分析","authors":"H. Peterson","doi":"10.1080/15588742.2016.1214943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Historically, justifications for the seclusion and physical restraint of hospital patients have stereotyped individuals with mental illness as “dangerous” to themselves and others (Huckshorn, 2004a). It can be argued, however, that it is the policies that regulate the use of seclusion and physical and chemical restraints that are dangerous. This article analyzes the Patients’ Rights section of the Hospital Conditions of Participation (CoPs), Part 482 of CFR 42, including sub-sections: e. Standard: Restraint or seclusion; f. Standard: Restraint or seclusion: Staff training requirements; and g. Standard: Death reporting requirements. The set of CoPs regarding Patients’ Rights are analyzed from a value-critical, process-oriented perspective. This article proposes the following six-point framework as uniquely suited to evaluating 42 CFR 428.13: 1) introduction to the background and historical significance of the problem; 2) evaluation of the clarity and measurability of the goals and objectives of the policy; 3) overview of the intended impact of the policy; 4) examination of the value criteria; 5) examination of existing power struggles for those impacted by the policy; and 6) examination of the actual impact of the policy. Results of the policy analysis suggest that the policy does not go far enough to reach its stated goals and objectives in full. In the conclusions, suggestions for further protection of patients’ rights are provided. Examples of alternatives to restraint and seclusion are discussed. Finally, the grave importance of reshaping the culture of mental health care, in terms of life-and-death consequences, is considered.","PeriodicalId":91762,"journal":{"name":"Journal of policy practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"187 - 204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15588742.2016.1214943","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Abuse and Trauma: A Policy Analysis of the Regulation of Seclusion and Restraint in Mental Health Care\",\"authors\":\"H. Peterson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15588742.2016.1214943\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Historically, justifications for the seclusion and physical restraint of hospital patients have stereotyped individuals with mental illness as “dangerous” to themselves and others (Huckshorn, 2004a). It can be argued, however, that it is the policies that regulate the use of seclusion and physical and chemical restraints that are dangerous. This article analyzes the Patients’ Rights section of the Hospital Conditions of Participation (CoPs), Part 482 of CFR 42, including sub-sections: e. Standard: Restraint or seclusion; f. Standard: Restraint or seclusion: Staff training requirements; and g. Standard: Death reporting requirements. The set of CoPs regarding Patients’ Rights are analyzed from a value-critical, process-oriented perspective. This article proposes the following six-point framework as uniquely suited to evaluating 42 CFR 428.13: 1) introduction to the background and historical significance of the problem; 2) evaluation of the clarity and measurability of the goals and objectives of the policy; 3) overview of the intended impact of the policy; 4) examination of the value criteria; 5) examination of existing power struggles for those impacted by the policy; and 6) examination of the actual impact of the policy. Results of the policy analysis suggest that the policy does not go far enough to reach its stated goals and objectives in full. In the conclusions, suggestions for further protection of patients’ rights are provided. Examples of alternatives to restraint and seclusion are discussed. Finally, the grave importance of reshaping the culture of mental health care, in terms of life-and-death consequences, is considered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of policy practice\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"187 - 204\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15588742.2016.1214943\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of policy practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2016.1214943\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of policy practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2016.1214943","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

从历史上看,对医院病人的隔离和身体约束的理由使精神疾病患者对自己和他人都有“危险”的刻板印象(hucshorn, 2004a)。然而,可以认为,管制使用隔离和物理和化学限制的政策是危险的。本文分析了美国联邦法规第42条第482部分医院参与条件(CoPs)的患者权利部分,包括以下小节:e.标准:约束或隔离;f.标准:约束或隔离:员工培训要求;g.标准:死亡报告要求。从价值关键的、面向过程的角度分析了一系列关于患者权利的cop。本文提出了以下六点框架,特别适合于评估42 CFR 428.13: 1)介绍问题的背景和历史意义;2)评估政策目标的清晰度和可衡量性;3)政策预期影响的概述;4)价值标准的审查;5)为受政策影响的人审视现有的权力斗争;6)审查政策的实际影响。政策分析的结果表明,该政策远不足以完全实现其既定的目标和目的。在结论中,提出了进一步保护患者权利的建议。讨论了约束和隔离的替代方法。最后,从生死后果的角度考虑,重塑精神保健文化的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient Abuse and Trauma: A Policy Analysis of the Regulation of Seclusion and Restraint in Mental Health Care
ABSTRACT Historically, justifications for the seclusion and physical restraint of hospital patients have stereotyped individuals with mental illness as “dangerous” to themselves and others (Huckshorn, 2004a). It can be argued, however, that it is the policies that regulate the use of seclusion and physical and chemical restraints that are dangerous. This article analyzes the Patients’ Rights section of the Hospital Conditions of Participation (CoPs), Part 482 of CFR 42, including sub-sections: e. Standard: Restraint or seclusion; f. Standard: Restraint or seclusion: Staff training requirements; and g. Standard: Death reporting requirements. The set of CoPs regarding Patients’ Rights are analyzed from a value-critical, process-oriented perspective. This article proposes the following six-point framework as uniquely suited to evaluating 42 CFR 428.13: 1) introduction to the background and historical significance of the problem; 2) evaluation of the clarity and measurability of the goals and objectives of the policy; 3) overview of the intended impact of the policy; 4) examination of the value criteria; 5) examination of existing power struggles for those impacted by the policy; and 6) examination of the actual impact of the policy. Results of the policy analysis suggest that the policy does not go far enough to reach its stated goals and objectives in full. In the conclusions, suggestions for further protection of patients’ rights are provided. Examples of alternatives to restraint and seclusion are discussed. Finally, the grave importance of reshaping the culture of mental health care, in terms of life-and-death consequences, is considered.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书