Patient attitudes towards compulsory community treatment orders and advance directives

Mental Health Service Users' Perspectives on Psychiatric Advance Directives: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are documents that allow users of mental health services to express their preferences for treatment in future mental health crises. To increase the use of PADs in psychiatric practice, it is helpful to consider how service users view PADs and the factors that facilitate or hinder PAD creation and implementation. A systematic review of the empirical literature on this topic may help inform evidence-based policy making.

METHODS

A systematic review concordant with PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Relevant electronic databases were searched up to July 2, 2021. Articles containing original empirical data on service users' perspectives on PADs were included. Data were analyzed thematically, tabulated, and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Fifty-three articles were identified and included. The following categories were identified: general preferences regarding factors such as legal force and revocability; benefits of PADs at the personal, treatment-related, and social levels; challenges and barriers concerning PAD creation and application; and possible and experienced facilitators of PAD creation.

CONCLUSIONS

Users of mental health services are highly interested in PADs and regard them as tools to improve their involvement in care. They generally prefer legally binding PADs that can be revoked only when users are competent to consent. Barriers reported by service users were mainly related to the creation and application of PADs, and support in PAD creation was the most important facilitator identified. The involvement of mental health professionals in creating PADs appears essential to realize the benefits of PADs and to reduce barriers to their use.

Use of compulsory community treatment in mental healthcare: An integrative review of stakeholders' opinions

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have examined the effects of compulsory community treatment (CCT), amongst them there were three randomized controlled trials (RCT). Overall, they do not find that CCT affects clinical outcomes or reduces the number or duration of hospital admissions more than voluntary care does. Despite these negative findings, in many countries CCT is still used. One of the reasons may be that stakeholders favor a mental health system including CCT.

AIM

This integrative review investigated the opinions of stakeholders (patients, significant others, mental health workers, and policy makers) about the use of CCT.

METHODS

We performed an integrative review; to include all qualitative and quantitative manuscripts on the views of patients, significant others, clinicians and policy makers regarding the use of CCT, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley), and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

We found 142 studies investigating the opinion of stakeholders (patients, significant others, and mental health workers) of which 55 were included. Of these 55 studies, 29 included opinions of patients, 14 included significant others, and 31 included mental health care workers. We found no studies that included policy makers. The majority in two of the three stakeholder groups (relatives and mental health workers) seemed to support a system that used CCT. Patients were more hesitant, but they generally preferred CCT over admission. All stakeholder groups expressed ambivalence. Their opinions did not differ clearly between those who did and did not have experience with CCT. Advantages mentioned most regarded accessibility of care and a way to remain in contact with patients, especially during times of crisis or deterioration. The most mentioned disadvantage by all stakeholder groups was that CCT restricted autonomy and was coercive. Other disadvantages mentioned were that CCT was stigmatizing and that it focused too much on medication.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholders had mixed opinions regarding CCT. While a majority seemed to support the use of CCT, they also had concerns, especially regarding the restrictions CCT imposed on patients' freedom and autonomy, stigmatization, and the focus on medication.

Mental health: The burden of social stigma

The burden of mental health has two facets, social and psychological. Social stigma causes individuals who suspect to be suffering from a mental condition to conceal it, importantly by seeking care from a nonspecialist provider willing to diagnose it as physical disease. In this way, social stigma adds to both the direct and indirect cost of mental health. A microeconomic model depicting an individual who searches for an accommodating provider leads to the prediction that individuals undertake more search in response to a higher degree of social stigma. However, this holds only in the absence of errors in decision-making, typically as long as mental impairment is not too serious. While government and employers have an incentive to reduce the burden of social stigma, their efforts therefore need to focus on persons with a degree of mental impairment that still allows them to avoid errors in pursuing their own interest.

Psychiatric Advance Directives Under the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities: Why Advance Instructions Should Be Able to Override Current Preferences

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are documents by means of which mental health service users can make known their preferences regarding treatment in a future mental health crisis. Many states with explicit legal provisions for PADs have ratified the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). While important UN bodies consider PADs a useful tool to promote the autonomy of service users, we show that an authoritative interpretation of the CRPD by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has the adverse consequence of rendering PADs ineffective in situations where they could be of most use to service users. Based on two clinical vignettes, we demonstrate that reasonable clinical recommendations can be derived from a more realistic and flexible CRPD model. Concerns remain about the accountability of support persons who give effect to PADs. A model that combines supported decision making with competence assessment is able to address these concerns.

Patients' attitudes towards and acceptance of coercion in psychiatry

Coercive interventions for psychiatric patients are controversial. Research on different preventive measures has increased over the last years. The present study examined patients' attitudes towards and understanding of previously experienced coercive measures as well as their preferences related to coercive measures and possible alternatives. In total, 213 patients who had experienced coercion and 51 patient controls (patients staying voluntarily on a closed ward with no coercive treatment) from three acute wards were examined via expert interviews and questionnaires in the framework of a naturalistic trial. Assessments included a new self-developed questionnaire as well as instruments measuring psychopathology. Patients who had experienced coercion differed from controls in both symptoms and insight into their illness. As expected, "noninvasive measures" (e.g., the use of a "soft room," observation in seclusion) were better accepted by patients than "invasive measures" (e.g., mechanical restraint, forced medication). Forced medication and mechanical restraint were less well accepted than involuntary hospitalization, seclusion, or video surveillance. The retrospective understanding of coercive measures increased over the course of treatment. In addition, patients rated a number of options for reducing coercion on the wards, particularly music or exercises. A large subgroup indicated they would like to discuss future admissions with the staff.

Five years after implementation: a review of the Irish Mental Health Act 2001

OBJECTIVES

The Mental Health Act 2001 (MHA 2001) was implemented in November 2006. Since that time, there has been considerable research into its impact, including the impact on service provision, use of coercive practices and the perceptions by key stakeholders. Our objective is to present a summary of research into the MHA 2001 since its implementation in the Irish state in the context of international standards and practice.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature presented on Medline and Google Scholar, directly assessed relevant journals and sought abstract information from the College of Psychiatry of Ireland.

RESULTS

There has been a small decrease in the rate of involuntary admission since implementation but there has been no change in the representativeness of diagnoses of individuals admitted involuntarily. Mental Health Tribunals were held for 57% of those admitted involuntarily and 46% of service users found that the Mental Health Tribunal made the involuntary admission easier to accept. One year after discharge, 60% of service users reflected that their involuntary admission had been necessary. Professional groups have expressed concerns regarding workload, training time for junior doctors and paperwork.

CONCLUSIONS

The MHA 2001 has brought the practice of involuntary admission further into line with international standards. However, five years after the implementation of the Act international guidelines and practice have highlighted areas in need of further reform, including capacity legislation and consideration of advance directives and community treatment orders. Further research is also lacking on caregivers' or family members' perceptions of the MHA 2001.