Effects of stricter legislation on coercive measures in child and adolescent psychiatric care: a qualitative interview study with staff

Abstract

BackgroundLegislators often want to positively affect psychiatric inpatient care and reduce coercion by a stricter judicial regulation. However, staff experiences and comprehension of such legal changes are largely unknown, yet essential in obtaining the intended outcomes. We examined staff understanding and implementation of a July 1, 2020 legal change in Sweden regarding the use of coercive measures (e.g., restraint, seclusion, and forced medication) in child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient care.MethodsDuring 2021, semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient staff (nurses, senior consultants, and head of units). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. We used an implementation outcomes framework to relate data to a wider implementation science context.ResultsThe legislative change was viewed as both positive and negative by participating staff. They reported mixed levels of preparedness for the legislative change, with substantial challenges during the immediate introduction, including insufficient preparations and lack of clear guidelines. A knowledge hierarchy was evident, affecting various professional roles differently. While the law was positively viewed for its child-centred approach, we found notable distrust in legislators’ understanding of the clinical reality, leading to practical difficulties in implementation. Care practices after the legal change varied, with some participants reporting little change in the use of coercive measures, while others noted a shift towards more seclusion and sedative medication usage. The work environment for consultants was described as more challenging due to increased bureaucratic procedures and a heightened pressure for accuracy.ConclusionsThe study highlights the complexities and challenges in implementing legislative changes in psychiatric care, where stricter legislation does not necessarily entail reduced use of coercion.