How mental health clinicians view community treatment orders: a national New Zealand survey

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.

Compulsory treatment in patients' homes in the Netherlands: what do mental health professionals think of this?

BACKGROUND

Compulsory treatment in patients' homes (CTH) will be introduced in the new Dutch mental health legislation. The aim of this study is to identify the opinions of mental health workers in the Netherlands on compulsory community treatment (CCT), and particularly on compulsory treatment in the patients' home.

METHODS

This is a mixed methods study, comprising a semi-structured interview and a survey. Forty mental health workers took part in the semi-structured interview about CCT and 20 of them, working in outpatient services, also completed a questionnaire about CTH. Descriptive analyses were performed of indicated (dis) advantages and problems of CCT and of mean scores on the CTH questionnaire.

RESULTS

Overall, the mental health workers seemed to have positive opinions on CCT. With respect to CTH, all mean scores were in the middle of the range, possibly indicating that clinicians were uncertain regarding safety issues and potential practical problems accompanying the use of CTH.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the participating mental health workers in this study had a positive attitude towards CCT, but they seemed relative uncertain about potential possibilities and problems of working with CTH.

O MANEJO DA INTERNAÇÃO PSIQUIÁTRICA COMPULSÓRIA POR PROFISSIONAIS DE SAÚDE EM SEU COTIDIANO

Resumo As internações psiquiátricas compulsórias (IPC) têm sido amplamente discutidas, ressaltando tensões entre seu aumento expressivo e o que preconiza a reforma psiquiátrica. O objetivo deste artigo é compreender os sentidos produzidos com equipes de saúde mental sobre IPC e seus desafios cotidianos. Para tanto, criamos seis grupos focais com profissionais de um hospital psiquiátrico. Os encontros foram audiogravados e as transcrições analisadas qualitativamente, com destaque aos sentidos construídos sobre IPC e seus desafios no cotidiano. Nossa análise aponta que, embora os profissionais façam uso dos mesmos recursos terapêuticos, a IPC se diferencia no cotidiano pela forma como é feita a admissão, que implica em baixa adesão e prorrogação da internação pela interferência do judiciário. Concluímos que o uso de IPC, para sanar questões sociais, persiste, e que o diálogo entre a justiça e a saúde é fundamental para recuperação dos princípios éticos e humanos que orientam a reforma psiquiátrica.

Community treatment orders in Western Switzerland: A retrospective epidemiological study

PURPOSE

Community treatment orders (CTOs) are legal procedures that authorise compulsory community mental health care to people affected by severe mental disorders. Nowadays, CTOs are regulated in 75 countries, with important variations in terms of legal criteria and practices. In Switzerland CTOs were introduced on the 1^st January 2013, following the amendment of the Swiss Civil Code. The aim of this study was to provide a first understanding of the use of CTOs in Western Switzerland in terms of incidence and prevalence rates, population profile, orders duration and reasons for discharge.

METHODS

Incidence and prevalence rates of CTOs between 2013 and 2017 were estimated. Survival analysis was used to investigate time to CTO discharge and associated factors. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with CTOs' success as reason for discharge.

RESULTS

CTOs' incidence rates per 100'000 inhabitants ranged between 4.8 for 2013 and 9.6 for 2017, while their prevalence raised from 4.8 to 19.5. People placed under CTO were mainly male, in their forties, of Swiss origin, single and living independently. Primarily affected by Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders (F20-F29), they frequently presented substance use problems, and severe danger for themselves. CTOs were mainly ordered by the guardianship authority as a form of conditional release. The estimated mean time to discharge was almost three years. Not being of Swiss origin and being prescribed to take a medication were associated with longer CTO while living in hospital, as a consequence of a long-lasting hospitalisation, and having a non-medical professional in charge of the order were associated with shorter time to discharge. Neither clinical factors nor legal criteria predicted time to discharge. Moreover, spending more days under CTO increased the likelihood of success at discharge, whereas not being of Swiss origin reduced it.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the CTOs' implementation in Switzerland. CTOs prevalence increased rapidly despite the lack of evidence on positive outcomes. Our results suggested that once under CTO, it takes a long time for a patient to be released, in case of both positive and negative outcomes.

Factors influencing use of community treatment orders and quality of care that people receive: results of a national survey in England and Wales

Aims and methodWe conducted a secondary analysis of data from the National Audit of Psychosis to identify factors associated with use of community treatment orders (CTOs) and assess the quality of care that people on CTOs receive. RESULTS: Between 1.1 and 20.2% of patients in each trust were being treated on a CTO. Male gender, younger age, greater use of in-patient services, coexisting substance misuse and problems with cognition predicted use of CTOs. Patients on CTOs were more likely to be screened for physical health, have a current care plan, be given contact details for crisis support, and be offered cognitive-behavioural therapy.Clinical implicationsCTOs appear to be used as a framework for delivering higher-quality care to people with more complex needs. High levels of variation in the use of CTOs indicate a need for better evidence about the effects of this approach to patient care.Declaration of interestNone.

Is it the right time to implement Community Treatment Order in India?

India enacted the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHCA 2017) on April 7, 2017 to align and harmonize with United Nations Convention on Persons with Disabilities and the principles of prioritizing human rights protection. While MHCA 2017 is oriented toward the rights of the patients, the rights of the family members and professionals delivering treatment, care, and support to persons with severe mental disorder (SMD) often suffer. MHCA 2017 mandates discharge planning in consultation with the patients for admitted patients and makes the service providers responsible for ensuring continuity of care in the community. The concerns surrounding the chances of relapse and recurrence when a person with a SMD stops medications continue to remain largely unaddressed. The rights-based MHCA 2017 makes it difficult for the prevailing practices of surreptitious treatment by the family/caregiver and proxy consultations on behalf of the patients. This will, in turn, lead to increased chances of relapse, risk of violence, homelessness, stigma, and suicide in persons with SMDs in the community, largely due to noncompliance to treatment. This will also result in increased caregiver burden and burnouts and may also cause disruptions in the family and the community. To strike a balance over the current MHCA 2017, there is a need to amend or bring-forth a new law rooted in the principles of community treatment order.

Do Community Treatment Orders in Psychiatry Stand Up to Principalism: Considerations Reflected through the Prism of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Compulsory psychiatric treatment is the norm in many Western countries, despite the increasingly individualistic and autonomous approach to medical interventions. Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) are the singular best example of this, requiring community patients to accept a variety of interventions, both pharmacological and social, despite their explicit wish not to do so. The epidemiological, medical/treatment and legal intricacies of CTOs have been examined in detail, however the ethical considerations are less commonly considered. Principlism, the normative ethical code based on the principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice, underpins modern medical ethics. Conflict exists between patient centred commentary that reflects individual autonomy in decision making and the need for supported decision making, as described in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the increasing use of such coercive measures, which undermines this principle. What appears to have been lost is the analysis of whether CTOs, or any coercive measure in psychiatric practice measures up against these ethical principles. We consider whether CTOs, as an exemplar of coercive psychiatric practice, measures up against the tenets of principalism in the modern context in order to further this debate.

The legal oversight of community treatment orders: A qualitative analysis of tribunal decision-making

Community treatment orders (CTOs) have been in place in various jurisdictions for over three decades, and yet are still a controversial aspect of mental health provision. One of the ethical concerns CTOs may engender is how difficult it can be to secure discharge from them, which in some jurisdictions can result in service users being subject to compulsion in the community indefinitely. Given the questions that can therefore be raised about the discharge process, it is important to understand the role of the mental health tribunal as a key safeguard in the management of CTOs. However, whilst a substantial body of literature exists on CTOs and on various aspects of tribunal practice in inpatient settings respectively, relatively little has been written about the role of the tribunal in the oversight of CTO discharge decisions. This article presents the results of an eight month ethnographic investigation into CTO use in England, focusing on the factors which contribute to tribunal decisions. A total of 62 participants were involved in the study, including 18 service users on CTOs, 36 mental health practitioners and 8 tribunal chairs. A combination of interviews, observations and documentary analysis are drawn upon to illustrate tribunal decision-making practice on CTOs. The key themes reported on are: the mediating influence of participant presentation and interaction in tribunals; tribunal framing and interpretation of insight and risk; and the importance of timing to tribunals, both in terms of the perceived stability of a service user's social circumstances, and the length of the CTO. The findings highlight the cumulative and interrelated effect of such factors on tribunal decision-making, and point to how tribunal judgements are heavily weighted towards upholding CTOs, with the implications that holds for individual rights.

Trust and Community Treatment Orders

There are conflicting views about the benefits of community treatment orders (CTOs) for people with mental illness. While there is a significant literature on the coercive nature of CTOs, there is less on the impact that CTOs have upon trust. A recovery-oriented approach requires a trusting therapeutic relationship and the coercion inherent in the CTO process may make it difficult for trust to be built, nurtured, and sustained between workers and patients. Our aim was therefore to examine the role of trust within the CTO experience for mental health workers and patients on CTOs. Methods: We conducted a thematic discourse analysis of 8 in-depth interviews with people who were currently on a CTO and 10 interviews with multi-disciplinary mental health workers in Adelaide, Australia (total N = 18 interviews). The interviews were coded and analyzed with the assistance of a patient representative. The findings reveal the challenges and opportunities for trust within the coercive relationship of a CTO. Findings: We found that patients have diverse experiences of CTOs and that trust or mistrust played an import role in whether or not they found the CTO beneficial.

Community treatment orders in New Zealand

Many legal mechanisms can be used to authorise compulsory community mental healthcare: leave or conditional discharge for compulsory in-patients; adult guardianship (or incapacity) legislation; treatment as a condition of a community-based criminal sentence, like probation, or of parole from imprisonment; or a full-fledged community treatment order (CTO) scheme. It is the specific mix of mechanisms employed in a particular jurisdiction that will characterise how that legal system manages the delivery of compulsory (or quasi-consensual) community psychiatric care.

Supervised community treatment: guidance for clinicians

This article describes the background to the introduction of supervised community treatment (SCT) in the 2007 amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983 for England and Wales. The evidence base for the use of SCT in the UK and in other countries to date is considered, and guidance from the literature regarding the decision to impose it is reviewed. Early local experience of SCT is described, in part through a number of fictitious vignettes. Finally, we present a set of guidelines which may be used by clinicians when considering SCT.

A Cross Cultural Comparison of Attitude of Mental Healthcare Professionals Towards Involuntary Treatment Orders

The purpose of this study was to investigate East-West cultural attitudes of mental healthcare professionals (MHPs) towards Involuntary Treatment Orders (ITOs) among Taiwan, England, Wales, and New Zealand. Data on Taiwanese MHPs' views of ITO regime were collected from the National Psychiatric Disease Mandatory Assessment and Community Care Review Committee (N = 176). A national survey instrument was designed to assess the level of support for ITOs among senior clinicians and to determine their views on the importance of various factors in decision-making, the mechanisms through which coercion may work, impediments to its use, and its perceived impact on patients and therapeutic relationships. A descriptive analysis was carried out with data presented as appropriate for the distribution and a t-test was used to detect any differences by respondents. Risk reduction was ranked the most important factor in use of ITOs and reasons for discharging an order. Female respondents had higher approval ratings, with 85 % of agreeing that ITOs were of benefit to the therapeutic relationship, assured long-term stability, and increased medication compliance. The results suggest that clinicians decide the use of ITOs largely based on the risk management, both in terms of starting and ending an order. However, the use of ITOs vary which reflected in the practice. Given this variation in the use of enabling legislation, multidisciplinary input in decision-making is an essential safety mechanism.

Associations between compulsory community treatment and continuity of care in a three year follow-up of the Oxford Community Treatment Order Trial (OCTET) cohort

BACKGROUND

Most studies investigating the effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) use readmission to hospital as the primary outcome. Another aim of introducing CTOs was to improve continuity of care. Our study was a 3-year prospective follow-up which tested for associations between CTOs and continuity of care.

METHODS

Our study sample included 333 patients recruited to the Oxford Community Treatment Order Trial (OCTET). We collected data on continuity of care using eight previously operationalized measures. We analysed the association between CTOs and continuity of care in two ways. First, we tested the association between continuity of care and OCTET randomisation arm (CTO versus voluntary care via Section 17 leave). Second, we analysed continuity of care and CTO exposure independent of randomisation; using any exposure to CTO, number of days on CTO, and proportion of outpatient days on CTO as outcomes.

RESULTS

197 (61%) patients were made subject to CTO during the 36-month follow-up. Randomisation to CTO arm was significantly associated with having a higher proportion of clinical documents copied to the user but no other measures of continuity. Having a higher proportion of outpatient days on CTO (irrespective of randomisation) was associated with fewer 60 day breaks without community contact. A sensitivity analysis found that any exposure to CTO and a higher proportion of outpatient days on CTO were associated with fewer days between community mental health team contacts and 60 day breaks without contact.

CONCLUSION

We found some evidence of an association between CTO use and better engagement with the community team in terms of increased contact and fewer breaks in care. Those with CTO experience had a higher number of inpatient admissions which may have acted as a mediator of this association. We found limited evidence for an association between CTO use and other measures of continuity of care.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

It is controversial whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (2003, 2008, 2012, 8 November 2013, 3 June 2016). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another pre-existing form of CCT such as supervised discharge.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and, where possible, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE approach to create 'Summary of findings' tables for key outcomes and assessed the risk of bias of these findings.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included three studies (n = 749). Two were based in the USA and one in England. The English study had the least bias, meeting three out of the seven criteria of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. The two other studies met only one criterion, the majority being rated unclear.Two trials from the USA (n = 416) compared court-ordered 'outpatient commitment' (OPC) with entirely voluntary community treatment. There were no significant differences between OPC and voluntary treatment by 11 to 12 months in any of the main health service or participant level outcome indices: service use - readmission to hospital (2 RCTs, n= 416, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, low-quality evidence); service use - compliance with medication (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19, low-quality evidence); social functioning - arrested at least once (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.52, low-quality evidence); social functioning - homelessness (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.15, low-quality evidence); or satisfaction with care - perceived coercion (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.89, low-quality evidence). However, one trial found the risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80, low-quality evidence).The other RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive and briefer supervised discharge (Section 17) in England. The study found no difference between the two groups for either the main health service outcomes including readmission to hospital by 12 months (1 RCT, n = 333, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence), or any of the participant level outcomes. The lack of any difference between the two groups persisted at 36 months' follow-up.Combining the results of all three trials did not alter these results. For instance, participants on any form of CCT were no less likely to be readmitted than participants in the control groups whether on entirely voluntary treatment or subject to intermittent supervised discharge (3 RCTs, n = 749, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16 moderate-quality evidence). In terms of NNTB, it would take 142 orders to prevent one readmission. There was no clear difference between groups for perceived coercion by 12 months (3 RCTs, n = 645, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.71, moderate-quality evidence).There were no data for adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These review data show CCT results in no clear difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with voluntary care or brief supervised discharge. People receiving CCT were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Short periods of conditional leave may be as effective (or non-effective) as formal compulsory treatment in the community. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this legislation is introduced. However, conclusions are based on three relatively small trials, with high or unclear risk of blinding bias, and low- to moderate-quality evidence. In addition, clinical trials may not fully reflect the potential benefits of this complex intervention.

Community Treatment Orders-A pause for thought

Community Treatment Orders (CTO) have been available for several decades in some countries and are being progressively introduced worldwide, with significant uptake in Asian countries as they move more mental health care into the community. However the evidence for the effectiveness of CTOs is limited. The evidence from local audits and evaluations is conflicted with some studies showing clear benefit and others not. The same is the case for uncontrolled before and after studies. The higher levels of evidence such as randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, and Cochrane reviews have consistently failed to demonstrate benefits from CTO use on key measures such as symptom levels, functioning, and healthcare use. Despite this they are increasingly available internationally and often greeted enthusiastically by clinicians and families who want to ensure care and follow up for the mentally ill. This article briefly discusses the evidence before describing potential alternatives to the use of compulsion that do have an evidence base, such as multidisciplinary community working, housing initiatives, and employment support.

Coercion in mental health: a trial of the effectiveness of community treatment orders and an investigation of informal coercion in community mental health care

Background

Coercion comprisesformal coercionorcompulsion[treatment under a section of the Mental Health Act (MHA)] andinformal coercion(a range of treatment pressures, includingleverage). Community compulsion was introduced in England and Wales as community treatment orders (CTOs) in 2008, despite equivocal evidence of effectiveness. Little is known about the nature and operation of informal coercion.

Design

The programme comprised three studies, with associated substudies: Oxford Community Treatment Order Evaluation Trial (OCTET) – a study of CTOs comprising a randomised controlled trial comparing treatment on CTO to voluntary treatment via Section 17 Leave (leave of absence during treatment under section of the MHA), with 12-month follow-up, an economic evaluation, a qualitative study, an ethical analysis, the development of a new measure of capabilities and a detailed legal analysis of the trial design; OCTET Follow-up Study – a follow-up at 36 months; and Use of Leverage Tools to Improve Adherence in community Mental Health care (ULTIMA) – a study of informal coercion comprising a quantitative cross-sectional study of leverage, a qualitative study of patient and professional perceptions, and an ethical analysis.

Participants

Participants in the OCTET Study were 336 patients with psychosis diagnoses, currently admitted involuntarily and considered for ongoing community treatment under supervision. Participants in the ULTIMA Study were 417 patients from Assertive Outreach Teams, Community Mental Health Teams and substance misuse services.

Outcomes

The OCTET Trial primary outcome was psychiatric readmission. Other outcomes included measures of hospitalisation, a range of clinical and social measures, and a newly developed measure of capabilities – the Oxford Capabilities Questionnaire – Mental Health. For the follow-up study, the primary outcome was the level of disengagement during the 36 months.

Results

Community treatment order use did not reduce the rate of readmission [(59 (36%) of 166 patients in the CTO group vs. 60 (36%) of 167 patients in the non-CTO group; adjusted relative risk 1.0 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.33)] or any other outcome. There were no differences for any subgroups. There was no evidence that it might be cost-effective. Qualitative work suggested that CTOs’ (perceived) focus on medication adherence may influence how they are experienced. No general ethical justification was found for the use of a CTO regime. At 36-month follow-up, only 19 patients (6% of 329 patients) were no longer in regular contact with services. Longer duration of compulsion was associated with longer time to disengagement (p = 0.023) and fewer periods of discontinuity (p < 0.001). There was no difference in readmission outcomes over 36 months. Patients with longer CTO duration spent fewer nights in hospital. One-third (35%) of the ULTIMA sample reported lifetime experiences of leverage, lower than in the USA (51%), but patterns of leverage experience were similar. Reporting leverage made little difference to patients’ perceived coercion. Patients’ experiences of pressure were wide-ranging and pervasive, and perceived to come from family, friends and themselves, as well as professionals. Professionals were committed to patient-centred approaches, but felt obliged to assert authority when patients relapsed. We propose a five-step framework for determining the ethical status of offers by mental health professionals and give detailed guidance for professionals about how to exercise leverage.

Conclusions

Community Treatment Orders do not deliver clinical or social functioning benefits for patients. In the absence of further trials, moves should be made to restrict or stop their use. Informal coercion is widespread and takes different forms.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73110773.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Care planning for consumers on community treatment orders: an integrative literature review

BACKGROUND

Case management is the established model for care provision in mental health and is delivered within current care philosophies of person-centred and recovery-oriented care. The fact that people with a mental illness may be forced to receive care and treatment in the community poses challenges for clinicians aiming to engage in approaches that promote shared decision-making and self-determination. This review sought to gain an in-depth understanding of stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of care planning for consumers' on CTOs.

METHODS

An integrative review method allowed for inclusion of a broad range of studies from diverse empirical sources. Systematic searches were conducted across six databases. Following appraisal, findings from included papers were coded into groups and presented against a framework of case management.

RESULTS

Forty-eight papers were included in the review. Empirical studies came from seven countries, with the majority reporting on qualitative methods. Many similarities were reported across studies. Positive gains from CTOs were usually associated with the nature of support received, highlighting the importance of the therapeutic relationship in care planning. Key gaps in care planning included a lack of connection between CTO, treatment and consumer goals and lack of implementation of focussed interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Current case management processes could be better utilised for consumers on CTOs, with exploration of how this could be achieved warranted. Workers need to be sensitive to the 'control and care' dynamic in the care planning relationship, with person-centred approaches requiring core and advanced practitioner and communication skills, including empathy and trust.

Community treatment orders in the UK 5 years on: a repeat national survey of psychiatrists

Aims and method Community treatment orders (CTOs) are increasingly embedded into UK practice and their use continues to rise. However, they remain highly controversial. We surveyed psychiatrists to establish their experiences and current opinions of using CTOs and to compare findings with our previous survey conducted in 2010. Results The opinions of psychiatrists in the UK have not changed since 2010 in spite of recent evidence questioning the effectiveness of CTOs. Clinical factors (the need for engagement and treatment adherence, and the achievement of adherence and improved insight) remain the most important considerations in initiating and discharging a CTO. Clinical implications Given the accumulating evidence from research and clinical practice that CTOs do not improve outcomes, it is concerning that psychiatrists' opinions have not altered in response, particularly given the implications for patient care.

Effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders: The International Evidence

OBJECTIVE

Community treatment orders (CTOs) exist in more than 75 jurisdictions worldwide. This review outlines findings from the international literature on CTO effectiveness.

METHOD

The article draws on 2 comprehensive systematic reviews of the literature published before 2013, then uses the same search terms to identify studies published between 2013 and 2015. The focus is on what the literature as a whole tells us about CTO effectiveness, with particular emphasis on the strength and weaknesses of different methodologies.

RESULTS

The results from more than 50 nonrandomized studies show mixed results. Some show benefits from CTOs while others show none on the most frequently reported outcomes of readmission, time in hospital, and community service use. Results from the 3 existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show no effect of CTOs on a wider range of outcome measures except that patients on CTOs are less likely than controls to be a victim of crime. Patients on CTOs are, however, likely to have their liberty restricted for significantly longer periods of time. Meta-analyses pooling patient data from RCTs and high quality nonrandomized studies also find no evidence of patient benefit, and systematic reviews come to the same conclusion.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence of patient benefit from current CTO outcome studies. This casts doubt over the usefulness and ethics of CTOs. To remove uncertainty, future research must be designed as RCTs.

"Care or control?": a qualitative study of staff experiences with outpatient commitment orders

PURPOSE

Outpatient commitment orders are being increasingly used in many countries to ensure follow-up care of people with psychotic disorders after discharge from hospital. Several studies have examined outpatient commitment in relation to use of health care services, but there have been fewer studies of health professionals' experiences with the scheme. The purpose of this study was to examine health professionals' experiences with patients subject to outpatient commitment.

METHODS

This was a focus group study using a descriptive and exploratory approach. The study was based on three focus group interviews with a total of 22 participants. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The study showed that health professionals had a positive attitude towards outpatient commitment and considered it necessary for patients with psychosis who lacked insight and did not collaborate on treatment. At the same time their attention to patients' lack of insight could lead to a paternalistic approach more than measures to enhance patient autonomy. This challenged their therapeutic relationship with the patient.

CONCLUSION

Health professionals found it difficult to combine control with therapeutic care, but gave greater emphasis to patients' need for treatment and continuity of care than to their autonomy. This dilemma indicates a need to discuss whether increased attention to patients' autonomy rather than insight into their illness would improve treatment cooperation and reduce the use of coercion.

CTOs: what is the state of the evidence?

PURPOSE

Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) require outpatients to adhere to treatment and permit rapid hospitalisation when necessary. They have become a clinical and policy solution to repeated hospital readmissions despite some strong opposition and the contested nature of published evidence. In this article, we appraise the current literature on CTOs from the viewpoint of Evidence-Based Medicine and discuss the way forward for using and researching CTOs.

RESULTS

Non-randomised outcome studies show conflicting results, but their lack of standardisation of methods and measures makes it difficult to draw conclusions. In contrast, all three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted concur in their findings that CTOs do not impact on hospital outcomes. No systematic review or meta-analysis has identified any clear clinical advantage to CTOs.

CONCLUSION

The evidence-base does not support the use of CTOs in their current form. Involuntary clinical interventions must conform to the highest standard of evidence-based care. To enable clinicians to take an evidence-based approach and to settle remaining uncertainties about the current evidence, high-quality RCTs should be designed and undertaken, using standardised outcome measures.

Use of community treatment orders in an inner-London assertive outreach service

Aims and method To compare admission rates and bed occupancy before and after the introduction of community treatment orders (CTOs) in 37 assertive outreach service patients. The effect of CTOs on treatment adherence and illicit drug use were also evaluated. The views of patients and care coordinators were obtained through a focus group. Results When CTOs were introduced, admission rates fell from 3.3 to 0.3 per year and average bed occupancy declined from 133.2 to 10.8 days per year. Treatment adherence improved from 4 (10.8%) to 31 (83.7%) patients, and an objective reduction in substance misuse was observed in 25 (67.5%) patients. Whereas patients expressed ambivalence towards CTOs, their care coordinators generally had a more positive view. Clinical implications The decline in hospital usage following the introduction of CTOs is encouraging and could reflect improved adherence and engagement through intensive case management, leading to a reduction in readmissions. However, further studies need to look at quality of life, cost-effectiveness and the impact on patients.

Community treatment orders and the experiences of ethnic minority individuals diagnosed with serious mental illness in the Canadian mental health system

Introduction

The prevalence of Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) in the Western world has generated considerable discussion regarding best practices in the outpatient treatment of the seriously mentally ill. Although problems encountered by ethnic minority communities in the various health care systems have been studied to some degree, there is an acute dearth of information on the effects of CTOs on minority individuals. This paper presents findings from research on the lived experiences of individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds who have been the subjects of CTOs in Toronto, Canada, and their perceptions of its impact on their lives.

Methods

Using a qualitative phenomenological approach, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals who have experienced CTOs. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants (n = 24) from ethnic minority background in Toronto, Canada.

Results

Participants perceived both positive and negative impacts of CTOs. The positives included affirmation of experiences with the mental health system; improved rapport with the case management and clinical team, increased medication compliance and feelings of empowerment. The negative feedback included feelings of being coerced and the stigma associated with it.

Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that although CTOs are not a panacea for every mental health problem, they can be effective with a specific group who choose to follow through with the expectations of the treatment. The author, however argues that for these individuals to be on a CTO before getting better treatment, brings to the fore a number of issues with the mental health system. This is particularly concerning as it pertains to individuals of ethnic minority background.

The subjective experience of community treatment orders: patients' views and clinical correlations

BACKGROUND

There is little objective evidence to support the use of community treatment orders (CTOs) from randomized controlled trials. Qualitative research indicates more negative than positive responses to the use of CTOs. Nonetheless, the use of CTOs is growing internationally. There is no research to identify for whom CTOs may be a positive experience.

AIM

To assess patients' perspectives of CTOs, assessing for correlates with clinical and demographic variables.

METHODS

Patients currently or previously subject to a CTO were assessed quantitatively to identify their experience. Demographic data, the experience of coercion, views of detention, satisfaction with care, social functioning and psychopathology were correlated using SPSS.

RESULTS

Fifty-three per cent of patients felt that they were, on balance, better off when treated informally in the community. Patients described greater coercion and less satisfaction with care when subject to a CTO. These factors, and being in employment, identified patients whom felt harmed by CTOs 61% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper highlights that more than half of patients under a CTO consider it negatively. This group is identified by patients who work, experience coercion and are unsatisfied with care. This has implications for the application of CTOs.

Clinical stability in the community associated with long-term approved leave under the Mental Health Act 2001

Introduction We present the case of a 27-year-old man with a background diagnosis of treatment resistant schizophrenia and absent insight who for the last 3 years has been residing in a high support residential setting on approved leave under the Mental Health Act (MHA) 2001. The case demonstrates how this man achieved clinical stability in the community with the assistance of long-term involuntary admission under the MHA 2001, in contrast to the previous years of his illness in which he had suffered multiple relapses of his psychotic illness with ssociated distress, poor self-care and repeated in-patient re-admissions. We discuss the equivalent use of community treatment orders in other jurisdictions and how the judicious use of approved leave under the MHA 2001 may be used as an alternative in Ireland where community treatment orders are not currently available.

METHOD

Case Report.

CONCLUSION

The case report highlights how the use of long-term approved leave under the MHA2001 may be used as alternative in Ireland to mimic CTOs for certain difficult to treat patients with psychotic illness who would benefit from ongoing treatment, but lack capacity to engage in such treatment due to persistent symptoms and lack of insight.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of CCT for people with SMI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register and Science Citation Index (2003, 2008, and 2012). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary. We further updated this search on the 8 November 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another pre-existing form of compulsory community treatment such as supervised discharge.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat statistic (NNT). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table for outcomes we rated as important and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

All studies (n=3) involved patients in community settings who were followed up over 12 months (n = 752 participants).Two RCTs from the USA (total n = 416) compared court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) with voluntary community treatment. OPC did not result in significant differences compared to voluntary treatment in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.21, low grade evidence); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52, low grade evidence); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15, low grade evidence) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89, low grade evidence). However, risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50 CI 0.31 to 0.80). Other than perceived coercion, no adverse outcomes were reported. In terms of numbers needed to treat (NNT), it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest. The NNT for the reduction of victimisation was lower at six (CI 6 to 6.5).One further RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive supervised discharge in England and found no difference between the two for either the main outcome of readmission (1 RCT, n = 333, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.99 CI 0.74 to 1.32, medium grade evidence), or any of the secondary outcomes including social functioning and mental state. It was not possible to calculate the NNT. The English study met three out of the seven criteria of The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, the others only one, the majority being rated unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CCT results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard voluntary care. People receiving CCT were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Short periods of conditional leave may be as effective (or non-effective) as formal compulsory treatment in the community. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this legislation is introduced. However, conclusions are based on three relatively small trials, with high or unclear risk of blinding bias, and evidence we rated as low to medium quality.

Liberty or dignity: community treatment orders and rights

The use of community treatment orders (CTOs) remains controversial despite their widespread use in a number of different countries. The focus of a CTO should be on individuals with severe and enduring mental disorders, typically requiring adherence with recommended outpatient treatment in the community and requiring that they allow access to members of the clinical team for the purpose of assessment. There is no current provision for CTOs under Irish mental health legislation, although patients who are involuntarily detained under the MHA 2001 (Ireland) can be granted approved leave from hospital. This provision allows for the patient to be managed in the community setting, though, while technically on leave, they remain as inpatients detained under the MHA 2001 (Ireland). This article describes the use of CTOs and considerations relating to their implementation. There is discussion of the ethical grounds and evidence base for their use. Ethical considerations such as balancing autonomy against health needs and the utilisation of capacity principles need to be weighed by clinicians considering the use of CTOs. Though qualitative research provides some support for the use of CTOs, there remains a clear lack of robust evidence based findings to support their use in terms of hospitalisation rates, duration of illness remission and improved social functioning.

Community treatment orders for patients with psychosis (OCTET): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Compulsory supervision outside hospital has been developed internationally for the treatment of mentally ill people following widespread deinstitutionalisation but its efficacy has not yet been proven. Community treatment orders (CTOs) for psychiatric patients became available in England and Wales in 2008. We tested whether CTOs reduce admissions compared with use of Section 17 leave when patients in both groups receive equivalent levels of clinical contact but different lengths of compulsory supervision.

METHODS

OCTET is a non-blinded, parallel-arm randomised controlled trial. We postulated that patients with a diagnosis of psychosis discharged from hospital on CTOs would have a lower rate of readmission over 12 months than those discharged on the pre-existing Section 17 leave of absence. Eligible patients were those involuntarily admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of psychosis, aged 18-65 years, who were deemed suitable for supervised outpatient care by their clinicians. Consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to be discharged from hospital either on CTO or Section 17 leave. Randomisation used random permuted blocks with lengths of two, four, and six, and stratified for sex, schizophrenic diagnosis, and duration of illness. Research assistants, treating clinicians, and patients were aware of assignment to randomisation group. The primary outcome measure was whether or not the patient was admitted to hospital during the 12-month follow-up period, analysed with a log-binomial regression model adjusted for stratification factors. We did all analyses by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN73110773.

FINDINGS

Of 442 patients assessed, 336 patients were randomly assigned to be discharged from hospital either on CTO (167 patients) or Section 17 leave (169 patients). One patient withdrew directly after randomisation and two were ineligible, giving a total sample of 333 patients (166 in the CTO group and 167 in the Section 17 group). At 12 months, despite the fact that the length of initial compulsory outpatient treatment differed significantly between the two groups (median 183 days CTO group vs 8 days Section 17 group, p<0·001) the number of patients readmitted did not differ between groups (59 [36%] of 166 patients in the CTO group vs 60 [36%] of 167 patients in the Section 17 group; adjusted relative risk 1·0 [95% CI 0·75-1·33]).

INTERPRETATION

In well coordinated mental health services the imposition of compulsory supervision does not reduce the rate of readmission of psychotic patients. We found no support in terms of any reduction in overall hospital admission to justify the significant curtailment of patients' personal liberty.

FUNDING

National Institute of Health Research.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illnesses reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning. Given the widespread use of such powers it is important to assess the effects of this type of legislation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We undertook searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register 2003, 2008, and Science Citation Index. We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors of each included study.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials of compulsory community treatment compared with standard care for people with severe mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected and quality assessed studies and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed effects risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two randomised clinical trials (total n = 416) of court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) from the USA. We found little evidence that compulsory community treatment was effective in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.2); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89). However, risk of victimisation may decrease with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.5 CI 0.31 to 0.8). In terms of numbers needed to treat (NNT), it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest. The NNT for the reduction of victimisation was lower at six (CI 6 to 6.5). A new search for trials in 2008 did not find any new trials that were relevant to this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compulsory community treatment results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard care. People receiving compulsory community treatment were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this type of legislation is introduced.

Compulsory community mental health treatment: literature review

Following their introduction in the United States in the 1970s various forms of compulsory treatment in the community have been introduced internationally. Compulsory treatment in the community involves a statutory framework that mandates enforceable treatment in a community setting. Such frameworks can be categorized as preventative, least restrictive, or as having both preventative and least restrictive features. Research falls into two categories; descriptive, naturalistic studies and controlled and uncontrolled comparative studies. The research has produced equivocal results, and presents numerous methodological challenges. Where programmes have demonstrated improved outcomes debate continues as to whether these outcomes are associated with legal compulsion or enhanced service provision. Service user, family and clinician perspectives demonstrate a divergence of views within and across groups, with clinicians more strongly in support than service users. The issue of compulsory community treatment is an important one for nurses, who are often at the forefront of clinical service provision, in some cases in statutory roles. Critical reflection on the issue of compulsory community treatment requires understanding of the limitations of empirical investigations and of the various ethical and social policy issues involved. There is a need for further research into compulsory community treatment and possible alternatives.

Psychiatrists' attitudes towards autonomy, best interests and compulsory treatment in anorexia nervosa: a questionnaire survey

BACKGROUND

The compulsory treatment of anorexia nervosa is a contentious issue. Research suggests that psychiatrists have a range of attitudes towards patients suffering from anorexia nervosa, and towards the use of compulsory treatment for the disorder.

METHODS

A postal self-completed attitudinal questionnaire was sent to senior psychiatrists in the United Kingdom who were mostly general adult psychiatrists, child and adolescent psychiatrists, or psychiatrists with an interest in eating disorders.

RESULTS

Respondents generally supported a role for compulsory measures under mental health legislation in the treatment of patients with anorexia nervosa. Compared to 'mild' anorexia nervosa, respondents generally were less likely to feel that patients with 'severe' anorexia nervosa were intentionally engaging in weight loss behaviours, were able to control their behaviours, wanted to get better, or were able to reason properly. However, eating disorder specialists were less likely than other psychiatrists to think that patients with 'mild' anorexia nervosa were choosing to engage in their behaviours or able to control their behaviours. Child and adolescent psychiatrists were more likely to have a positive view of the use of parental consent and compulsory treatment for an adolescent with anorexia nervosa. Three factors emerged from factor analysis of the responses named: 'Support for the powers of the Mental Health Act to protect from harm'; 'Primacy of best interests'; and 'Autonomy viewed as being preserved in anorexia nervosa'. Different scores on these factor scales were given in terms of type of specialist and gender.

CONCLUSION

In general, senior psychiatrists tend to support the use of compulsory treatment to protect the health of patients at risk and also to protect the welfare of patients in their best interests. In particular, eating disorder specialists tend to support the compulsory treatment of patients with anorexia nervosa independently of views about their decision-making capacity, while child and adolescent psychiatrists tend to support the treatment of patients with anorexia nervosa in their best interests where decision-making is impaired.

Community treatment orders are not a good thing

Does politicians' enthusiasm for community treatment orders lie primarily in the area of public protection? If so, can such orders reduce homicide rates? Is there adequate evidence of their value, given their adverse effects on individual liberty? This well-researched and provocative debate will enlighten readers on these and many more of the complicated questions surrounding this issue.

Dilemmas for clinicians in use of Community Treatment Orders

Clinicians who treat patients using Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) face many potential dilemmas in their relations with involuntary outpatients and the exercise of their powers. We compare the dilemmas identified in the literature with those reported by responsible clinicians in New Zealand (NZ). These clinicians experienced a number of well-known dilemmas, such as determining the right moment for a person's discharge from a CTO, but they seemed less troubled by some other difficulties than might be expected, usually because they considered involuntary outpatient treatment the best option for the patient or the best way to manage the risks involved. Further dilemmas were identified by the NZ clinicians that have not been widely discussed, concerning the proper scope of clinical authority over patients under CTOs and the decision to revoke involuntary outpatient status. In conclusion, some suggestions are made as to how clinicians might best manage the dilemmas involved.

PLC or TLC: is outpatient commitment the/an answer?

The lively debate over mandated community treatment in general and outpatient commitment laws (OPC) in particular has raised many issues. At its core, the debate is over how and to what extent laws should be formulated to persuade, leverage or coerce (PLC) persons with severe mental illness living in the community to comply with medications that mental health professionals believe they need. The alternative to PLC is what we call TLC (tender loving care): a strategy of using benefits - improved patient-centered treatment, entitlements and service delivery, including assertive outreach - rather than penalties or conditions on access to services, to induce compliance. We examine three aspects of the debate: (1) the empirical case for the need for OPC court orders to maintain revolving-door severely mentally ill persons in the community; (2) the normative argument over whether such orders constitute coercion, and, if so, whether that coercion is justifiable; and (3) the incentives such orders create to leverage community providers to augment resources and tailor treatment and services to entice patients to become willing participants in the management of their disorders.

Factors in the selection of patients for conditional release from their first psychiatric hospitalization

OBJECTIVE

This study examined a sample of patients in Victoria, Australia, to identify factors in selection for conditional release from an initial hospitalization that occurred within 30 days of entry into the mental health system.

METHODS

Data were from the Victorian Psychiatric Case Register. All patients first hospitalized and conditionally released between 1990 and 2000 were identified (N=8,879), and three comparison groups were created. Two groups were hospitalized within 30 days of entering the system: those who were given conditional release and those who were not. A third group was conditionally released from a hospitalization that occurred after or extended beyond 30 days after system entry. Logistic regression identified characteristics that distinguished the first group. Ordinary least-squares regression was used to evaluate the contribution of conditional release early in treatment to reducing inpatient episodes, inpatient days, days per episode, and inpatient days per 30 days in the system.

RESULTS

Conditional release early in treatment was used for 11 percent of the sample, or more than a third of those who were eligible for this intervention. Factors significantly associated with selection for early conditional release were those related to a better prognosis (initial hospitalization at a later age and having greater than an 11th grade education), a lower likelihood of a diagnosis of dementia or schizophrenia, involuntary status at first inpatient admission, and greater community involvement (being employed and being married). When the analyses controlled for these factors, use of conditional release early in treatment was significantly associated with a reduction in use of subsequent inpatient care.

A qualitative analysis of the use of community treatment orders in Saskatchewan

This study examined the opinions of patients who have been placed on a community treatment order (CTO), their relatives, mental health clinicians and representatives of community agencies about the use of CTOs in Saskatchewan. Patients were assessed using indepth interviews, while their relatives, mental health professionals and representatives of community agencies took part in facilitated focus groups. Patients had contradictory feelings about CTOs. Most experienced some degree of coercion while on the orders but many believed that CTOs provided necessary structure in their lives. Clinicians were more consistently positive but recognized the difficult choices in balancing the subject's right to self-determination with the benefits of a treatment order. Family members viewed CTOs as necessary to control a chaotic situation caused by the subject's limited insight.

Fault-lines in community treatment order legislation

This article discusses the major tension points in the legislation that authorises involuntary outpatient treatment for mental disorder in six British Commonwealth jurisdictions. Particular attention is paid to the role of competence (or capacity) principles in the ruling legal criteria, to the precise powers of community treatment conferred, and to the potential impact of the legislation on clinicians' liability concerns. It is argued that the conferral on clinicians of a power to administer 'forced medication' in community settings is not required to promote active use of involuntary outpatient care, and that such a power should not be provided. The article concludes with discussion of the reasons why community treatment orders are used more frequently in some jurisdictions than others.

Family perspective on community treatment orders: a New Zealand study

BACKGROUND

People with serious mental disorders typically live with family members. Despite increasing interest in compulsory community treatment for such patients, the experience and views of their family members have been little studied.

MATERIAL

Qualitative interviews with 27 family members, whose relatives have been subject to compulsory community treatment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Family members are generally in favour of the use of compulsory community treatment orders. They perceive a positive influence on their relative, on themselves, on family relationships, and on relations with the clinical team. Family members are aware of the ethical and other dilemmas that attend the use of compulsory community care.