Abstract:WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Coercive interventions (CI) in emergency psychiatry face increasing criticism, as they can be an emotional, even traumatic event for all persons involved. They are thus considered the last resort. The use of coercive interventions differs widely with regard to type and frequency of measures across different countries and institutions. Individual staff characteristics, such as attitudes towards coercion, may play a vital role in the management of aggression. Little is known about the influence of emotions of staff members on CI, but they are likely to play an important role. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Most staff members surveyed had a rather critical view of coercion and considered it a "necessary evil." Staff members with the most work experience had a more critical view of coercion in comparison with less experienced staff. Nurses rated coercion more positively than did psychiatrists or psychologists. Emotions play an important role in decision-making processes. The current study systematically asked for accompanying emotions during the application of CI and looked for individual differences. A majority of the participants experienced compassion; about half felt helplessness, grief or anxiety. Almost 20% stated that they felt a sense of power. Older staff members more often felt anger or guilt; women felt less power than men did. Nurses felt more desperation than other occupational groups. Staff members consider reflective interventions, such as team supervisions or post-seclusion/restraint debriefings with the patient, as important. Nevertheless, only half reported that these interventions are carried out routinely. Staff members believe that certain risk factors (including stress, low staffing, a fully occupied ward and the presence of particular staff members) enhance the probability of CI. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: To reduce the use of coercive interventions, we recommend that psychiatric teams include highly experienced staff members as work experience has a positive effect on the attitudes towards coercive interventions. Structured post-seclusion/restraint debriefings and team supervisions are considered helpful by staff members and are relatively easy to implement on acute wards. Enhancing staff members' ability to reflect on their own attitudes, emotions and actions is likely to reduce coercive interventions. ABSTRACT: Introduction Little is known about staff attitudes towards coercive interventions (CI) and emotions accompanying these measures. Aim The current study assessed attitudes, views on reflective interventions and accompanying emotions of different occupational groups towards CI, as well as factors, that increase the probability of CI. Method Staff members (N = 138) of a large psychiatric hospital in Germany were assessed using the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale (SACS) and newly developed items assessing staff members' emotions and views on coercion. Results Experienced staff members were most critical of coercion. Nurses rated coercion significantly more positively than other staff. A majority experienced compassion; about half felt helplessness, grief or anxiety. Almost 20% felt a sense of power. Nurses felt the most desperation. Participants strongly desired reflective measures such as post-seclusion/restraint debriefings with patients. According to staff members, stress on the wards and low staffing increases the probability of CI. Discussion The study assessed accompanying emotions during the application of CI. Attitudes towards coercion and emotions are associated with individual staff characteristics (e.g. profession, work experience). Implications The presence of experienced staff members may help prevent CI. Staff consider reflective interventions helpful in reducing CI.

Investigating the Associations between Patient-Reported Quality of Care and Perceived Coercion: A Norwegian Cross-Sectional Study

Variation in opinions on coercion use among mental healthcare professionals: a questionnaire study

Experience of violence and attitudes of staff members towards coercion in psychiatric settings: observational study

Perceived coercion in psychiatric inpatients: a validation study of the Romanian-language version of the Admission Experience Survey

Coercion in psychiatry: A cross-sectional study on staff views and emotions

The relationships between the combination of person- and organization-related conditions and patients' perceptions of palliative care quality

Is the continuum of coercion in psychiatry really a continuum? A statistical implication analysis

"Some missions can be quite emotionally painful." Paramedic ́s experience exercising coercion during assignments—A qualitative study

Self-Reported Perceptions of Patients and Staff on Participation and Verbal and Social Interactions in High-Security Forensic Psychiatric Care in Sweden

A Scoping Review on Staff Attitudes towards the Use of Coercion in Mental Healthcare

How may cultural and political ideals cause moral distress in acute psychiatry? A qualitative study

Expert opinions on improving coercion data collection across Europe: a concept mapping study

Patients' expectations of and experiences with psychosocial care needs in perioperative nursing: a descriptive study

Informal coercion in inpatient mental healthcare: a scoping review protocol

Perceived coercion in psychiatric hospital admission: validation of the French-language version of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey

Patients' perception of the quality of psychiatric inpatient care in the Faroe Islands

Effect of coercive measures on mental health status in adult psychiatric populations: a nationwide trial emulation

Understanding U.S. Patient Experiences and Describing Implications for Measurement

Something Happened with the Way We Work: Evaluating the Implementation of the Reducing Coercion in Norway (ReCoN) Intervention in Primary Mental Health Care

Associations between person-centred care and job strain, stress of conscience, and intent to leave among hospital personnel

Geographical variation in compulsory mental health care: cause for concern and source of causal inference