Legal pitfalls of psychiatric research

Psychiatric Advance Directives: Origins, Benefits, Challenges, and Future Directions

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are legal documents that allow individuals with psychiatric illness to designate decisions, while competent, about their future psychiatric care were they to lose competency due to psychiatric illness in the future. Among other items, these documents often include preferences regarding a surrogate decision-maker, types of medications, doses and routes of medications, seclusion and restraints, electroconvulsive therapy, and instructions for care of their property while incapacitated. While the concept and legal recognition of PADs has existed in the United States for several decades, use of PADs by patients and familiarity with PADs among mental health providers remain limited. This column reviews the origin of PADs, discusses several commonly considered arguments for and against the use of these documents, and concludes with a discussion of how PADs are currently used in the United States and their potential future role in mental health treatment.

Least restrictive alternative – advance statements and the new mental health legislation

Proposals for new mental health legislation make the case for using the ‘least restrictive alternative’ (Scottish Executive, 2001) and the ‘least restrictive environment’ (Department of Health & Home Office, 2000) as guiding principles in deciding the management and treatment of the patient. This appears to be the case made for introducing compulsory treatment in the community. The patient living in the community, while maintained on medication, rather than the hospital would appear to be defined as on the ‘least restrictive alternative’. This, however, takes only a limited approach to what is ‘restrictive’, which should be interpreted more widely, including the patient's view as well as that of clinicians and policy makers. Thus, a patient may see it as less restrictive during an acute phase to be in hospital and not on medication, than in the community but on medication. It is likely, given our knowledge of patients' attitudes to medication (Eastwood & Pugh, 1997), that many patients will prefer to be on oral medication rather than depot, which they see as less restrictive.

Compulsory mental health care in Norway: the treatment criterion

The Norwegian government has chosen to retain a treatment criterion in the Mental Health Care Act despite the opposition of several user organizations. From a critical user perspective, the only reason for using coercion to require mental health treatment is that the individuals are in a state where they are an immediate danger to themselves and/or their surroundings. This articles aims, first, to provide an overview of research studies concerning the benefits or harmfulness of involuntary treatment after coerced admission and, second, to evaluate studies that try to compare involuntary with voluntary treatment. A systematic overview of studies of compulsory mental health care with regard to treatment criteria, coercion in mental health, and involuntary admission published over the last decade was examined in detail, along with a secondary manual search of references cited in identified publications. Few studies have been conducted on the effect of compulsory mental health care, and the results have been contradictory. More randomized studies are needed to document the kinds of effects that the use of compulsory treatment has on treatment results. Another issue that needs further examination is whether the use of coercion should be transferred to legal bodies with an adjudicatory process.

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.

Advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

An advance directive is a document specifying a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make such decisions in the future. They have been used in end-of-life settings to direct care but should be well suited to the mental health setting.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2008), BIOSIS (1985 to February 2008), CINAHL (1982 to February 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), PsycINFO (1872 to February 2008), as well as SCISEARCH and Google - Internet search engine (February 2008). We inspected relevant references and contacted first authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adults with severe mental illness, comparing any form of advance directive with standard care for health service and clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence interval again using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance.

Implementing psychiatric advance directives: service provider issues and answers

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are an emerging method for adults with serious and persistent mental illness to document treatment preferences in advance of periods of incapacity. This article presents and responds to issues most frequently raised by service providers when planning for implementation of PADs. Issues discussed include access to PADs; competency to execute PADs; the relationship of PADs to standards of care, resource availability, and involuntary treatment; roles of service providers and others in execution of PADs; timeliness and redundancy of PAD information; consumer expectations of PADs; complexity of PADs; revocation and "activation"; legal enforceability of PADs; the role and powers of agents; liability for honoring and not honoring PADs; and use of PADs to consent for release of health care information. Recommendations are made for training staff and consumers, consideration of statute development, and methods to reduce logistical, attitudinal, and system barriers to effective use of PADs.

Advance directives for patients compulsorily admitted to hospital with serious mental illness. Randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

An advance directive is a statement of a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make treatment decisions in the future.

AIMS

To evaluate whether use of advance directives by patients with mental illness leads to lower rates of compulsory readmission to hospital.

METHOD

In a randomised controlled trial in two psychiatric services in inner London, 156 in-patients about to be discharged from compulsory treatment under the Mental Health Act were recruited. The trial compared usual psychiatric care with usual care plus the completion of an advance directive. The primary outcome was the rate of compulsory readmission.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (19%) in the intervention group and 16 (21%) in the control group were readmitted compulsorily within 1 year of discharge. There was no difference in the numbers of compulsory readmissions, numbers of patients readmitted voluntarily, days spent in hospital or satisfaction with psychiatric services.

CONCLUSIONS

Users' advance instruction directives had little observable impact on the outcome of care at 12 months.

Uses of Community Treatment Orders in New Zealand: early findings

OBJECTIVE

To assess the uses of Community Treatment Orders (CommTOs) in New Zealand.

METHOD

A retrospective study of patients' records held by the regional administrator of mental health legislation and a survey of psychiatrists attending a conference in Dunedin.

RESULTS

Males under Community Treatment Orders (CommTOs) outnumbered females 6:4; a high proportion were considered to have a major psychotic disorder; and one fifth remained under a CommTO for more than a year without inpatient care. Among the psychiatrists, there was a high level of agreement that, when used appropriately, the benefits of CommTOs outweigh their coercive impact on the patients; the most strongly supported indicator for use was the promotion of compliance with medication. The rate of use of CommTOs in Otago is remarkably similar to the rate in Victoria, Australia.

CONCLUSIONS

Records suggest that a significant proportion of patients under CommTOs are not soon readmitted; and many clinicians in New Zealand consider CommTOs to be a useful strategy for managing the community care of long-term patients with schizophrenia and major affective disorders.