Advance Statements for Black African and Caribbean people (AdStAC): protocol for an implementation study

A qualitative meta-synthesis of service users' and carers' experiences of assessment and involuntary hospital admissions under mental health legislations: a five-year update

BACKGROUND

Compulsory admissions occur in psychiatric hospitals around the world. They result in coercive and sometimes traumatic experiences for service users and carers. Legal and service reforms in various countries are intended to reduce rates of detention and improve service user experience. We aimed to inform policy and service delivery by providing an up-to-date synthesis of qualitative evidence on service users' and carers' experiences of assessment and detention under mental health legislation, updating previous reviews in which we searched for literature published up to 2018.

METHODS

We searched five bibliographic databases for studies published between January 2018 and March 2023. We identified 24 additional studies reporting qualitative investigations of service users' or carers' experiences of assessment or detention under mental health legislation. A team including researchers with relevant personal experience analysed and synthesised data using a thematic synthesis approach.

RESULTS

Findings suggest that views on compulsory admissions and assessment varied: many reports highlighted its often negative, traumatic impacts on emotional well-being and self-worth, with fewer accounts of it as an opportunity to access help and support, accompanied by feelings of relief. Experiences of racial discrimination, inequality of access, and dissatisfaction with support before and after hospital stay were more prominent than in our previous reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing service user and carer involvement in treatment decisions, provision of timely information at key stages of the admission process, training of key personnel, addressing the issue of discrimination, and investing in community alternatives of inpatient care may contribute to and lead to better overall treatment experiences.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The study protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO database on 30th May 2023 (CRD42023423439).

Advance statements in mental healthcare: time to close the evidence to practice gap

This article discusses advance statements in mental health care, which allow individuals with mental disorders to express their preferences for treatment during mental health crises. Despite the evidence supporting their effectiveness, their implementation in clinical practice remains limited. This article explores variations among advance statements, such as psychiatric advance directives (PADs), joint crisis plans (JCPs) and self-binding directives (SBDs), highlighting their content, development process and legal status. We outline the benefits of advance statements, including empowerment, early intervention, improved therapeutic relationships and reduced compulsory admissions. We then draw attention to the challenges that may contribute to their lack of implementation, including legal complexities, communication issues, cultural factors, potential inequities, healthcare provider knowledge, changing preferences, resource constraints, crisis responses, data privacy, family involvement, and long-term evaluation. In conclusion, advance statements offer significant benefits but require addressing these critical aspects to ensure ethical and effective use. Bridging the evidence-to-practice gap is essential, with a focus on implementation science. Integrating these tools into routine clinical practice can significantly benefit individuals with severe mental disorders and mental health systems.

Self-binding directives in psychiatric practice: a systematic review of reasons

Self-binding directives (SBDs) are an ethically controversial type of advance decision making involving advance requests for involuntary treatment. This study systematically reviewed the academic literature on psychiatric SBDs to elucidate reasons for and against their use in psychiatric practice. Full-text articles were thematically analysed within the international, interdisciplinary authorship team to produce a hierarchy of reasons. We found 50 eligible articles. Reasons for SBD use were promoting service user autonomy, promoting wellbeing and reducing harm, improving relationships, justifying coercion, stakeholder support, and reducing coercion. Reasons against SBD use were diminishing service user autonomy, unmanageable implementation problems, difficulties with assessing mental capacity, challenging personal identity, legislative issues, and causing harm. A secondary finding was a clarified concept of capacity-sensitive SBDs. Future pilot implementation projects that operationalise the clarified definition of capacity-sensitive SBDs with safeguards around informed consent, capacity assessment, support for drafting, and independent review are required.