Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Predictors of involuntary patients’ satisfaction with care: prospective study

  • Emma Bainbridge (a1), Brian Hallahan (a2), David McGuinness (a3), Patricia Gunning (a4), John Newell (a5), Agnes Higgins (a6), Kathy Murphy (a7) and Colm McDonald (a8)...
Abstract
Background

Involuntary admission can be traumatic and is associated with negative attitudes that persist after the episode of illness has abated.

Aims

We aimed to prospectively assess satisfaction with care at the points of involuntary admission and symptomatic recovery, and identify their sociodemographic, clinical and service experience predictors.

Method

Levels of satisfaction with care, and clinical and sociodemographic variables were obtained from a representative cohort of 263 patients at the point of involuntary admission and from 155 of these patients 3 months after termination of the involuntary admission. Data were analysed with multiple linear regression modelling.

Results

Higher baseline awareness of illness (B = 0.19, P < 0.001) and older age (B = 0.05, P = 0.001) were associated with more satisfaction with care at baseline and follow-up. Transition to greater satisfaction with care was associated with improvements in awareness of illness (B = 0.13, P < 0.001) and in symptoms (B = 0.05, P = 0.02), as well as older age (B = 0.04, P = 0.01). Objective coercive experiences were not associated with variation in satisfaction with care.

Conclusions

There is wide variation in satisfaction with coercive care. Greater satisfaction with care is positively associated with clinical variables such as increased awareness of illness.

Declaration of interest

None.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Predictors of involuntary patients’ satisfaction with care: prospective study
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Predictors of involuntary patients’ satisfaction with care: prospective study
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Predictors of involuntary patients’ satisfaction with care: prospective study
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Corresponding author
Correspondence: Colm McDonald, Clinical Science Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway, H91 YR71, Ireland. Email: colm.mcdonald@nuigalway.ie
Footnotes
Hide All

See this issue.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
1Naber, D, Kircher, T, Hessel, K. Schizophrenic patients’ retrospective attitudes regarding involuntary psychopharmacological treatment and restraint. Eur Psychiatry 1996; 11(1): 711.
2Katsakou, C, Priebe, S. Patient's experiences of involuntary hospital admission and treatment: a review of qualitative studies. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc 2007; 16(2): 172–8.
3Thornicroft, G, Farrelly, S, Birchwood, M, Marshall, M, Szmukler, G, Waheed, W, et al. CRIMSON [CRisis plan IMpact: subjective and Objective coercion and eNgagement] protocol: a randomised controlled trial of joint crisis plans to reduce compulsory treatment of people with psychosis. Trials 2010; 11: 102.
4Wyder, M, Bland, R, Crompton, D. The importance of safety, agency and control during involuntary mental health admissions. J Ment Health 2016; 25(4): 338–42.
5Smith, D, Roche, E, O'Loughlin, K, Brennan, D, Madigan, K, Lyne, J, et al. Satisfaction with services following voluntary and involuntary admission. J Ment Health 2014; 23(1): 3845.
6Katsakou, C, Priebe, S. Outcomes of involuntary hospital admission--a review. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2006; 114(4): 232–41.
7Priebe, S, Katsakou, C, Glockner, M, Dembinskas, A, Fiorillo, A, Karastergiou, A, et al. Patients’ views of involuntary hospital admission after 1 and 3 months: prospective study in 11 European countries. Br J Psychiatry 2010; 196(3): 179–85.
8O'Donoghue, B, Lyne, J, Hill, M, O'Rourke, L, Daly, S, Larkin, C, et al. Perceptions of involuntary admission and risk of subsequent readmission at one-year follow-up: the influence of insight and recovery style. J Ment Health 2011; 20(3): 249–59.
9Katsakou, C, Bowers, L, Amos, T, Morriss, R, Rose, D, Wykes, T, et al. Coercion and treatment satisfaction among involuntary patients. Psychiatr Serv 2010; 61(3): 286–92.
10O'Donoghue, B, Lyne, J, Hill, M, Larkin, C, Feeney, L, O'Callaghan, E. Physical coercion, perceived pressures and procedural justice in the involuntary admission and future engagement with mental health services. Eur Psychiatry 2011; 26(4): 208–14.
11Iversen, KI, Høyer, G, Sexton, HC. Coercion and patient satisfaction on psychiatric acute wards. Int J Law Psychiatry 2007; 30(6): 504–11.
12McLaughlin, P, Giacco, D, Priebe, S. Use of coercive measures during involuntary psychiatric admission and treatment outcomes: data from a prospective study across 10 European Countries. PLoS ONE 2016; 11(12): e0168720.
13Giacco, D, Mavromara, L, Gamblen, J, Conneely, M, Priebe, S. Shared decision-making with involuntary hospital patients: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators. BJPsych Open 2018; 4(3): 113–8.
14Dressing, H, Salize, HJ. Compulsory admission of mentally ill patients in European Union Member States. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2004; 39(10): 797803.
15Overall, JE, Gorham, DR. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychol Rep 1962; 10: 799–12.
16Hall, RC. Global Assessment of Functioning. A modified scale. Psychosomatics 1995; 36(3): 267–75.
17Kemp, RA, David, AS. Insight and adherence to treatment in psychotic disorders. Br J Hosp Med 1995; 54(5): 222–7.
18Hogan, TP, Awad, AG, Eastwood, R. A self-report scale predictive of drug compliance in schizophrenics: reliability and discriminative validity. Psychol Med 1983; 13(1): 177–83.
19Priebe, S, Gruyters, T. Patients’ assessment of treatment predicting outcome. Schizophr Bull 1995; 21(1): 8794.
20Gardner, W, Hoge, SK, Bennett, N, Roth, LH, Lidz, CW, Monahan, J, et al. Two scales for measuring patients’ perceptions for coercion during mental hospital admission. Behav Sci Law 1993; 11(3): 307–21.
21Iverson, KI, Hoyer, G, Sexton, H, Gronli, OK. Perceived coercion among patients admitted to acute wards in Norway. Nord J Psychiatry 2002; 56: 433–9.
22American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. APA, 2000.
23Heinrichs, DW, Hanlon, TE, Carpenter, WT Jr. The Quality of Life Scale: an instrument for rating the schizophrenic deficit syndrome. Schizophr Bull 1984; 10(3): 388–98.
24Hothorn, T, Hornik, K, Zeileis, A. Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J Comput Graphical Stat 2006; 15(3): 651–74.
25R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013.
26Kilbourne, AM, McCarthy, JF, Post, EP, Welsh, D, Pincus, HA, Bauer, MS, et al. Access to and satisfaction with care comparing patients with and without serious mental illness. Int J Psychiatry Med 2006; 36(4): 383–99.
27Priebe, S, Katsakou, C, Amos, T, Leese, M, Morriss, R, Rose, D, et al. Patients’ views and readmissions 1 year after involuntary hospitalisation. Br J Psychiatry 2009; 194(1): 4954.
28Strauss, JL, Zervakis, JB, Stechuchak, KM, Olsen, MK, Swanson, J, Swartz, MS, et al. Adverse impact of coercive treatments on psychiatric inpatients’ satisfaction with care. Community Ment Health J 2013; 49(4): 457–65.
29O'Donoghue, B, Lyne, J, Hill, M, Larkin, C, Feeney, L, O'Callaghan, E. Involuntary admission from the patients’ perspective. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2010; 45(6): 631–8.
30David, AS.To see oursels as others see us”. Aubrey Lewis's insight. Br J Psychiatry 1999; 175: 210–16.
31Mintz, AR, Dobson, KS, Romney, DM. Insight in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Schizophr Res 2003; 61(1): 7588.
32Savill, M, Jankovic, J, Katsakou, C, Kallert, T, Priebe, S. Symptom levels and initial appraisal of hospital treatment in patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 2012; 199(2): 7983.
33Setkowski, K, van der Post, LF, Peen, J, Dekker, JJ. Changing patient perspectives after compulsory admission and the risk of re-admission during 5 years of follow-up: The Amsterdam Study of Acute Psychiatry IX. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2016; 62(6): 578–88.
34Roche, E, Madigan, K, Lyne, JP, Feeney, L, O'Donoghue, B. The therapeutic relationship after psychiatric admission. J Nerv Ment Dis 2014; 202(3): 186–92.
35McGuinness, D, Higgins, A, Bainbridge, E, Brosnan, L, Keys, M, Felzmann, H, et al. Preserving control - a qualitative study of individuals’ experiences of involuntary admission. this issue.
36van der Post, LF, Peen, J, Visch, I, Mulder, CL, Beekman, AT, Dekker, JJ. Patient perspectives and the risk of compulsory admission: the Amsterdam Study of Acute Psychiatry V. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2014; 60(2): 125–33.
37Lay, B, Kawohl, W, Rossler, W. Outcomes of a psycho-education and monitoring programme to prevent compulsory admission to psychiatric inpatient care: a randomised controlled trial. Psychol Med 2018; 48(5): 849–60.
38Mental Health Commission. Annual Report 2014 Including Report of the Inspector of Mental Health Services. Mental Health Commission, 2014.
39Giacco, D, Conneely, M, Masoud, T, Burn, E, Priebe, S. Interventions for involuntary psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review. Eur Psychiatry 2018; 54: 4150.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Open
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2056-4724
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-open
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Predictors of involuntary patients’ satisfaction with care: prospective study

  • Emma Bainbridge (a1), Brian Hallahan (a2), David McGuinness (a3), Patricia Gunning (a4), John Newell (a5), Agnes Higgins (a6), Kathy Murphy (a7) and Colm McDonald (a8)...
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *