Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:50:10.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Restraint or not restraint. Involuntary transport from home of schizophrenic patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2020

B. Samso
Affiliation:
Parc de Salut Mar, Psychiatry, Barcelona, Spain
S. Ramos
Affiliation:
Hospital Can Misses, Psychiatry, Ibiza, Spain
A. Malagón
Affiliation:
Parc de Salut Mar, Psychiatry, Barcelona, Spain
A. Gonzalez
Affiliation:
Parc de Salut Mar, Psychiatry, Barcelona, Spain
M. Bellsolà
Affiliation:
Parc de Salut Mar, Psychiatry, Barcelona, Spain
J. León
Affiliation:
Parc de Salut Mar, Psychiatry, Barcelona, Spain
M. Llobet
Affiliation:
Parc de Salut Mar, Psychiatry, Barcelona, Spain
L. Alba
Affiliation:
Parc de Salut Mar, Psychiatry, Barcelona, Spain
V. Pérez
Affiliation:
Parc de Salut Mar, Psychiatry, Barcelona, Spain Centro de investigación Biomédica en Red de Salut Mental CIBERSAM, psychiatry, Barcelona, Spain
L.M. Martín
Affiliation:
Parc de Salut Mar, Psychiatry, Barcelona, Spain
D. Córcoles
Affiliation:
Parc de Salut Mar, Psychiatry, Barcelona, Spain

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

Although physical restraint (PR) is a non-rarely practice on psychiatry there are few studies that focus the attention on the risk factors for this intervention. PR is a legitimacy practice when is needed and well applied but is not free from side effects. Knowing risk factors might be useful to improve the application of PR.

Objectives

Study the risk factors involved with the use of PR at patient's home in individuals with schizophrenia before the involuntary transport (IT) to a psychiatric facility.

Methods

Is a descriptive and observational study of 267 psychotic patients that were assisted by a psychiatric home care unit (EMSE) in Barcelona during their IT. The sample was divided in two groups, depending on the need of PR. Socio-demographic data were collected as well as positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS), WHO disability assessment schedule (WHO/DAS), global assessment of functioning scale (GAF), Scale to assess unawareness of mental disorder (SUMD). Aggressiveness was assessed by PANSS-EC consisting of 5 items: excitement, tension, hostility, uncooperativeness and poor impulse.

Results

From the 267 psychotic patients 109 required PR. 154 were male and the average of age was 47. The results were significant in the PR group versus no PR for PANSS-EC (P = 0.000), as well as WHO/DAS (P = 0.017), GAF (P = 0.042), Positive PANSS (P = 0.000), age (P = 0.001) and substance use (P = 0.012). Were no significant for gender, insight or Negative PANSS.

Conclusions

Aggressiveness and violence were the most important PR related factors followed by positive symptoms, age, substance use and global functioning.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Type
e-Poster Viewing: Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2017
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.