Community Treatment Orders and Supported Decision-Making

Shifting Perspectives on the Challenges of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Care

Although shared decision making (SDM) has become the most preferable way in doctor-patient communication, it is not fully implemented in mental health care likely due to the complex nature of psychiatric syndromes and treatments. In this review we provide a systematic overview of all perceived and reported barriers to SDM in the literature, acknowledging field-specific challenges, and offering perspectives to promote its wider use. We conducted a systematic search of the wider literature in different databases and included all publications mentioning specified barriers to SDM in psychiatric care. Relevant data and opinions were categorised into micro-, meso- and macro-level themes and put into clinical perspective. We derived 20 barriers to SDM from 100 studies and reports. Eight were on micro-level care delivery, seven involved meso-level issues, five concerned macro-level themes. The multitude of perceived and actual barriers to SDM underline the challenges its implementation poses in mental health care, some of which can be resolved while others are inherent to the nature of the care, with its long-term relationships, complex dynamics, and social consequences, all requiring a flexible approach. We present four perspectives to help change views on the potential of SDM in mental health care.

Exploring mental health clients' current medication knowledge, beliefs and experience with healthcare providers in the community in South Australia

In Australia, mental illness has been recognised as a National Health Priority area, with the coronavirus pandemic adding a layer of urgency to the need to address the multiple health problems faced by clients with mental illnesses. Whilst much has been done in efforts to support these clients, little is known about their medication knowledge and experience with health professionals. The aim of the study was to explore the knowledge and beliefs of clients on the use of psychotropic medications and study their experiences with healthcare providers. Adult participants at a not-for-profit community-managed specialist mental health service provider in Adelaide, South Australia were recruited. Four focus group sessions were conducted between February 2020 and March 2021. All sessions were co-facilitated by a peer practitioner with lived experience. Sessions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants (n = 27) reported that provision of medication education was inadequate and, in some cases, non-existent. There was an apparent lack of support for monitoring and managing common side effects, such as weight gain. Participants described not being involved in any decision-making processes and that establishing and maintaining a therapeutic relationship with their healthcare providers was challenging. Perceived stigma remains a barrier in accessing healthcare. Despite participants regularly interacting with a range of healthcare providers, findings highlight key gaps in care, particularly medication education and establishing a therapeutic relationship with their healthcare providers. Future mental health reforms should consider the provision of additional medication education in community settings, such as at not-for-profit organisations. Moreover, healthcare providers should take a proactive approach in establishing therapeutic relationships.

Where the public health principles meet the individual: a framework for the ethics of compulsory outpatient treatment in psychiatry

Background

Compulsory treatments represent a legal means of imposing treatment on an individual, usually with a mental illness, who refuses therapeutic intervention and poses a risk of self-harm or harm to others. Compulsory outpatient treatment (COT) in psychiatry, also known as community treatment order, is a modality of involuntary treatment that broadens the therapeutic imposition beyond hospitalization and into the community. Despite its existence in over 75 jurisdictions worldwide, COT is currently one of the most controversial topics in psychiatry, and it presents significant ethical challenges. Nonetheless, the ethical debate regarding compulsory treatment almost always stops at a preclinical level, with the different ethical positions arguing for or against its use, and there is little guidance to support for the individual clinicians to act ethically when making the decision to implement COT.

Main body

The current body of evidence is not clear about the efficacy of COT. Therefore, despite its application in several countries, evidence favouring the use of COT is controversial and mixed at best. In these unclear circumstances, ethical guidance becomes paramount. This paper provides an ethical analysis of use of COT, considering the principlist framework established by Ross Upshur in 2002 to justify public health interventions during the 2002–2004 severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak. This paper thoroughly examines the pertinence of using the principles of harm, proportionality, reciprocity, and transparency when considering the initiation of COT.

Conclusion

Ross Upshur’s principlist model provides a useful reflection tool for justifying the application of COT. This framework may help to inform sounder ethical decisions in clinical psychiatric practice.

Control in the community: A qualitative analysis of the experience of persons on conditional discharge in Hong Kong

Mandatory outpatient treatment schemes such as community treatment orders remain controversial despite being commonly used around the world. Given concerns about patient autonomy and civil liberties, such schemes need to be closely scrutinised. Though Hong Kong's mandatory outpatient treatment scheme, the conditional discharge (CD) regime, has a number of significant legal concerns, empirical research on how it operates on the ground remains limited, and data on the subjective experience of relevant stakeholders is limited to healthcare professionals. This two-part cross-sectional study, the first on the service user perspective in Hong Kong, rectifies this gap. Data was collected through a self-reported survey and semi-structured interviews. Results demonstrated that, while similar themes to those in the literature were raised, such as powerlessness, a lack of understanding about the regime and in particular their rights thereunder, concerns about restrictive aspects of the regime and poor attitudes of healthcare professionals, and in some cases positive sentiments about beneficial aspects, the Hong Kong experience differs in the significant extent to which many of these concerns are demonstrated. The insights which this data provides in relation to how the implementation of the CD regime can be improved prior to legal reform is discussed, and suggestions for the way forward are proposed.

The therapeutic relationship in the context of involuntary treatment orders: The perspective of nurses and patients

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Involuntary treatment orders are increasingly being used around the world to allow the treatment of individuals living with a mental illness deemed incapable of giving consent and who are actively refusing treatment. The use of involuntary treatment orders can impact the nurse-patient therapeutic relationship, which is essential to offer quality care and promote recovery. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Nurses and patients do not agree on the possibility to develop a therapeutic relationship, with nurses believing they can build a bond with the patients despite the challenges imposed by the involuntary treatment order, and patients rejecting this possibility. Nurses caring for patients on involuntary treatment orders feel obligated to apply the conditions of this measure, even if it damages the relationship with their patients. This difficult aspect of their work leads them to question their role in relation to the management of involuntary treatment orders. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Nurses need to be aware of the reasons why patients on involuntary treatment orders do not believe in the possibility of building a therapeutic relationship. Nurses need to reflect on and express their concerns about the damaging effects that managing involuntary treatment orders conditions can have on the nurse-patient therapeutic relationship. ABSTRACT: Introduction Involuntary treatment orders (ITO) can impact the nurse-patient therapeutic relationship (TR) negatively. Despite the increasing use of ITOs around the world, few studies have explored their influence on the TR from the perspectives of nurses and patients. Aim To describe the TR in the context of ITOs as reported by nurses and individuals living with a mental illness. Method Secondary data analysis of qualitative interviews with nurses (n = 9) and patients (n = 6) was performed using content analysis. Results Participants described the TR as fundamentally embedded in a power imbalance amplified by the ITO, which was discussed through the conflicting roles of nurses, the legal constraints imposed on patients and nurses, the complex relation between the ITO and the TR, and the influence of mental healthcare settings' context. Discussion Nurses and patients' views were opposed, questioning the authenticity of the relationship. Implications for Practice Nurses should be aware of the patients' lack of faith in the TR to ensure that they are sensitive to patients' behaviours that may falsely suggest that a relationship is established. Further studies should explore ways to alleviate the burden of the management of ITOs on nurses and allow for a trusting relationship to be build.

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.

Community treatment orders and care planning: How is engagement and decision-making enacted?

Background

In many jurisdictions worldwide, individuals with a mental illness may be forced to receive care and treatment in the community. In Australia, legislation states that such care should be driven by a care plan that is recovery‐focussed. Key components in the care planning process include engagement and decision‐making about a person's support needs and care options, with trust being an essential component of care planning relationships.

Objective

This study examines how these components were enacted during service care contacts for individuals on community treatment orders.

Methods

The study was located at two community mental health teams in South Australia. Ethnographic observations of care planning discussions between consumers, their carers and clinicians, and interviews with individuals from these groups, were conducted over 18 months. Carspecken's critical ethnography provided a rigorous means for examining the data to identify underlying cultural themes that were informing day‐to‐day care interactions.

Results

Care planning was not occurring as it was intended, with service culture and structures impeding the development of trusting relationships. Clinicians striving to work collaboratively with consumers had to navigate a service bias and culture that emphasized a hierarchy of ‘knowing’, with consumers assumed to have less knowledge than clinicians.

Conclusions

Services and clinicians can challenge prejudicial ethical injustice and counter this through testimonial justice and implementation of tools and approaches that support genuine shared decision‐making.

Patient or Public Contribution

This study included individuals with lived experience of mental illness, their carers and clinicians as participants and researchers.

What Is the Capacity of Individuals with Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder to Make Healthcare Decisions? An Exploratory Study of the Views of Patients, Psychiatrists, and Family Caregivers—A Survey on Decisional Capacity in Mental Health

Background: Research on the decisional capacity of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients mostly reflects the hospital context. Aim: To describe the views of patients, psychiatrists, and caregivers on the capacity of individuals with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder to make everyday decisions on their care related to their illness. Methods: A survey was conducted among schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients, psychiatrists, and caregivers (June 2019 to January 2020; seven countries). A questionnaire was emailed to members of the Global Alliance of Mental Illness of Advocacy Network—Europe (GAMIAN; patients) and the European Federation of Families of People with Mental Illness (EUFAMI; caregivers) and to psychiatrists who voluntarily agreed to participate. Questions referred to patients’ involvement and capacity for healthcare decision making, and to barriers to and opportunities for autonomous decision making. Frequency, agreement, and importance were rated on Likert scales. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results: 21 schizophrenia or bipolar disorder patients (52.3% female; mean age (years) ± SD: 50.71 ± 12.02), 11 psychiatrists (18.2% female), and 15 caregivers (86.6% female; 100% family related) participated in the survey. In total, 86% of patients felt frequently involved in decisions about everyday care and medications, and 91% of psychiatrists and 40% of caregivers perceived the same; 38% of patients felt frequently involved in decisions about the use of acute symptom medications, and 57% on care planning, and 55% and 82% of psychiatrists, and 40% and 53% of caregivers, respectively, believed the same; and 86% of patients, 91% of psychiatrists, and 47% of caregivers agreed on the capacity of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder patients to value the implications of taking medicines to prevent acute psychotic crises. Poor understanding and training are barriers, while advocacy and increasing interest in patients’ needs are opportunities for increasing autonomous decision making. Conclusions: Stakeholders concur that schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients have the capacity to make everyday decisions around their care related to their illness, including acute symptom management. Barriers and opportunities exist to foster autonomous decisions among mental illness individuals.

The role of the Mental Health Tribunal in setting duration of compulsory treatment in Victoria

This article explores the role of the Mental Health Tribunal (the Tribunal) in setting duration of compulsory treatment orders under the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) (the MH Act) using qualitative analysis of data obtained by a Tribunal working group. It explores the extent to which there is a difference between the duration of treatment orders requested by treating teams and those made by the Tribunal, as well as the factors the Tribunal takes into account in setting a different duration. Results reveal the Tribunal made a treatment order of different (mostly shorter) duration in one out of five hearings. In these cases, two out of four factors identified by the working group were dominant influences: (1) ensuring congruence with the principles of the MH Act; and (2) information presented by one or more participants at the hearing. There were also high levels of attendance from either the patient, their support person or their legal representative when the Tribunal made a treatment order of different duration. This suggests participation by patients and support people at hearings provides the Tribunal with the information it needs to consider the principles under the MH Act meaningfully when exercising its discretion to determine the duration of compulsory treatment orders.