The use of coercive measures in a high security setting in Belgium: Prevalence and risk factors

• Published in: International journal of law and psychiatry Vol. 82; p. 101792
• Main Authors: van Heesch, Ben, Boucké, Jan, De Somer, Johanna, Dekkers, Ingrid, Jacob, Elise, Jeandarme, Inge
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier Ltd 01.05.2022
• Subjects: Belgium - epidemiology; Coercion; Coercive measures; Forensic psychiatry; High security; Hospitals, Psychiatric; Humans; Mental Disorders - psychology; Patient Isolation; Prevalence; Restraint; Restraint, Physical; Risk Factors; Seclusion; Belgium; Forensic psychiatry; Restraint; Coercive measures; Seclusion; High security
• ISSN: 0160-2527; 1873-6386; 1873-6386
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101792

Coercive measures are often used in forensic psychiatric settings as a strategy to manage violent and other problematic behavior. Few studies have been published regarding the use of coercive measures in high security populations. This is the first empirical study on this subject in Belgium. The aim of the present study was to examine the prevalence rates of coercive measures in Flanders' two high security settings and to identify individual patient risk factors for being subjected to a coercive measure. The study included all patients (N = 654) who were admitted in the Forensic Psychiatric Centres of Antwerp or Ghent over a six-year period. Data on the use of coercive measures (seclusion, mechanical restraint, and chemical restraint) were registered prospectively. Several regression analyses were conducted with multiple independent variables. The results show that half of the population (49.4%) was subjected to at least one coercive measure during admission in one of the high security settings. A small subgroup of patients (6.6%) was the subject of half of all coercive measures (51.0%). Seclusion was the most frequently used coercive measure (48.3%), followed by chemical restraint (12.2%). The prevalence rate of mechanical restraint was very low (0.8%) compared to previous research in similar populations. Various individual risk factors were significantly associated with a higher use of coercive measures. Clinical implications are discussed and the importance of developing international standards on recording and reporting on coercive measures is highlighted.