Listening to the Patient Perspective: Psychiatric Inpatients’ Attitudes Towards Physical Restraint
- 213 Downloads
When other options fail, physical restraint is used in inpatient psychiatric units as a means to control violent behavior of agitated inpatients and to prevent them from harm. The professional and social discourse regarding the use of restrictive measures and the absence of the inpatients’ attitudes towards these measures is notable. Our research therefore tries to fill this gap by interviewing inpatients about these issues. To assess the subjective experience and attitudes of inpatients who have undergone physical restraint. Forty inpatients diagnosed with psychiatric disorders were interviewed by way of a structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were conducted via use of SPSS statistical software. 1.Inpatients reported that physical restraint evoked an experience of loneliness (77.5%) and loss of autonomy (82.5%). 2.Staff visits during times of physical restraint were reported as beneficial according to 73.6% of the inpatients interviewed. 3.Two thirds of the inpatients viewed the use of physical restraints as justified when an inpatient was dangerous. 4.Two thirds of the inpatients regarded physical restraint as the most aversive experience of their hospitalization. Our pilot study explored the subjective experience and attitudes of psychiatric inpatients towards the use of physical restraint. Inpatients viewed physical restraint as a practice that was sometimes justified but at the same time evoked negative subjective feelings. We conclude that listening to inpatients’ perspectives can help caregivers to evaluate these measures.
KeywordsPatient perspective Physical restraint Psychosis Closed door unit
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Yaniv Spinzy declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Mr. Saed Maree (email@example.com) declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Dr. Aviv Segev (firstname.lastname@example.org) declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Dr. Gadi Cohen-Rappaport (email@example.com) declares that he has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.American Psychiatric Association. Seclusion and restraint: the psychiatric uses. Task Force Report 22. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1985.Google Scholar
- 5.Chow E, Desai H, Bury AS, Roy R, Bassett AS, Collins EJ. The effects of clozapine on aggression: a randomized controlled study. 149th Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association; May 4–9, 1996.Google Scholar
- 7.Gutheil TG. Legal issues in psychiatry. In: Kaplan HI, Sadock BJ, editors. Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry. Sixth. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1995. p. 2747–66.Google Scholar