Potential legal protection problems in the use of compulsory commitment in mental health care in Norway

Involuntary psychiatric admission: The referring general practitioners' assessment of patients' dangerousness and need for psychiatric hospital treatment

BACKGROUND

In Norway, GPs may decide to refer patients to involuntary psychiatric treatment. Internationally, there has been a discussion regarding criteria for involuntary admission. In Norway and in other countries where the treatment criterion is still used, some have suggested its removal.

AIMS

To examine which legal criteria GPs used to refer patients to involuntary admission, whether they had thought about using a different criterion, and on which information they based their decision.

METHODS

A total of 74 doctors who had referred patients to involuntary admission at one major Norwegian psychiatric hospital participated in semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

In total, 38% (28) had applied the danger criterion only and 23% (17) had applied the treatment criterion only; 32% (24) had applied both criteria, while 7% (5) did not answer this question; 74% (55) said that they could not have chosen a different criterion; 45% (33) had based their decision on events/behaviour prior to and during the consultation, 43% (32) on events prior to the consultation only, and 8% (6) on information obtained during the consultation only; 4% (3) did not answer this question. None had used tools to aid in the assessment of danger.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The danger criterion was frequently used by the referring GPs. It is unclear how a removal of the treatment criterion from Norwegian legislation might impact clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

While the danger criterion was applied by a majority, the treatment criterion was also chosen by many and was of importance to the doctors' reasoning regarding referrals to involuntary admission. Most thought they could not have chosen a different criterion.