Trends in use of coercion in norway
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 23

Trends in use of coercion in Norway PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 55 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Trends in use of coercion in Norway. Trond Hatling Head. Legal framework. 1848, 1961, 1999, 2006 In principle the same since 1961 Compulsory admissions Compulsory observation (not allowed to treat involuntary) Compulsory admission Compulsory Outpatient Treatment

Download Presentation

Trends in use of coercion in Norway

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Trends in use of coercion in norway

Trends in useofcoercion in Norway

Trond Hatling

Head


Legal framework

Legal framework

  • 1848, 1961, 1999, 2006

    • In principle the same since 1961

  • Compulsory admissions

    • Compulsory observation (not allowed to treat involuntary)

    • Compulsory admission

  • Compulsory Outpatient Treatment

    • Usually at discharge – but not exclusively


Legal framework1

Legal framework

  • Involuntary Treatment

    • Primarily medical

    • Separate decision

  • Coercive measures

  • Open Area Seclusion

    • Not coercion - Legally regulated since 1999


Policy initiatives to reduce use of coercion

Policy initiatives to reduceuseofcoercion

  • Escalation plan 1999-2008

    • Money –restructuring – ideals of voluntary as the «principle» not defined

  • Strategic plan to reduce and quality «assure» use of coercion – 2006

    • A paper plan

  • Revised plan to reduce and quality «assure» use of coercion – 2012

    • Requiring ditto Health region and health board plans

    • A paper plan?


Policy initiatives to reduce use of coercion1

Policy initiatives to reduce use of coercion

  • Bernt-Committee (2009)

    • The Health Directorate

    • The treatment criterion

    • Revising the 2006-strategy

    • Recommended a Law revision

  • Paulsrud-Committee (2011)

    • Ministry of Health – Law revision

    • Suggested a number of revisions

    • Put in a drawer (one sentence in the 2012 state budget)


What is coercion

What is coercion?

  • Formal coercion - legal

  • Experienced coercion

    • Users –relatives - staff

  • De facto coercion

    • Power ”embraces ” – house rules

  • Different definitions – Different parties – Different perspectives

  • Coercion has legitimacy in the population – in particular when considered dangerous

    • debated


Compulsory admissions

Compulsory admissions

  • Compulsory admissions

  • Additional Mandatory Criteria

  • Community Treatment Orders/Compulsory Community Treatment/Assisted Outpatient Treatment/Mandated Community Treatment


Compulsory admissions 1848 1996

Compulsoryadmissions 1848-1996

  • 1848-1915 (Hospitals)

    • 44/100 000 inhabitants

  • 1916-1935 (Hospitals – a few psych. clinics)

    • 70/100 000 inhabitants

  • 1936-1960 (Hospitals – a few psych. clinics)

    • 78/100 000 inhabitants

  • 1961-1984 (Hospitals – a few psych. clinics/Nursing homes)

    • 98/100 000 inhabitants

  • 1996 (Hospitals – Nursing homes/DPC)

    • 195/100 000 inhabitants


  • The national picture 2011

    The nationalpicture – 2011


    Additional mandatory criteria

    AdditionalMandatoryCriteria


    Regional differences

    Regional differences


    Compulsory community treatment

    Compulsory Community Treatment

    • Since 1961

    • Ease compulsory admission process

    • Requirement for compulsory medical treatment

      • But not «included»

    • The last decade about 2000 (1600-2600) compulsory dicscharged

      • Figures uncertain


    Involuntary treatment

    Involuntary treatment

    • About 30% of those compulsory admitted are Involuntary treated (1994-2007)

      • Figures uncertain


    Coercive measures

    Coercive measures

    • Mechanical restraints

    • Forced medication

    • Seclusion

    • Holding/restraint (since 2006)

    • Open area seclusion (skjerming)


    Holding 2007 2009

    Holding – 2007-2009

    • 2007

      • 272 Persons – 999 Times

    • 2009

      • 574 Persons – 1680 Times

    • Due to changes in recording practice – more than changes in clinical practice?


    Conclusion

    Conclusion

    • Use of coercion last 10-30 years

      • ”constant” – despite considerable public attention

    • Regulatory means main strategy to reduce coercion

      • Limited – if any - effect

    • Broad set of means necessary to reduce coercion

      • Deep into i the clinical practice

      • Methods exists – not applied on a broad scale


    Conclusion cont

    Conclusion – Cont.

    • National leadership (as good as?) absent

    • International research on reducing coercion difficult to implement


  • Login