Deprivation of liberty and the community nurse.

In this month's Policy column, Iwan Dowie discusses the 'deprivation of liberty' - which is used to safeguard patients who may be lacking sufficient mental capacity to manage their own safety. The author, through previous legal cases, shares how the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)-an amendment to the Mental Capacity Act 2005-came into being, and the importance of community nurses in knowing the DoLS.

Holding the Guardrails on Involuntary Commitment.

In response to the increasing number of mentally ill people experiencing homelessness, some policy-makers have called for the expanded use of involuntary commitment, even for individuals who are not engaging in behaviors that are immediately life-threatening. Yet there is no evidence that involuntary commitment offers long-term benefits, and significant reasons to believe that expanding the practice will cause harm. In addition, these proposals ignore research showing that most people with mental illness have the capacity to make medical decisions for themselves. Rather than expanding the use of involuntary commitment, policy-makers should support approaches proven to decrease the prevalence of homelessness, such as supportive housing. In addition, states should reevaluate their commitment standards for persons who pose no risk of harm to others. One promising approach is Northern Ireland's Mental Health Capacity Act of 2016, which establishes a uniform standard for imposing nonconsensual health care interventions, without any distinction between mental illnesses and other conditions in which capacity might be compromised.

Debate: Involuntary treatment and detention are a necessary part of mental health care for children and young people.

People of all ages are subject to involuntary psychiatric detention and treatment worldwide but there is current discussion about whether this complies with modern human rights law. The use of involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation among children and young people has largely eschewed research and policy interest to date. In this debate section, we hear from people with experience of child mental health services in the UK, USA and low- and middle-income countries about their views on the use of involuntary treatment in young people.

Debate: Involuntary treatment - not whether, but when and what else is needed.

Involuntary treatment is a complex dialectic balancing self-autonomy and the individual's right to consent to treatment with society's duty to protect those suffering from severe mental illness who are at risk of causing harm to themselves or others. When necessary, involuntary treatment should provide evidence-based and medically justified care, with sufficient oversight and due process to protect the rights of patients. Clinically, the issue is not whether involuntary treatment should ever be used, but rather what other services are needed to enhance the quality of care within comprehensive community systems of care, thus limiting or preventing the need for involuntary interventions while also improving the outcomes of individuals affected by severe mental illness.

Debate: The experience of involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation for children and young people.

Involuntary treatment has been reported to be traumatic, stigmatising and frightening, as well as sometimes lifesaving. However, there has been little research into the experiences of people who have been hospitalised involuntarily prior to the age of 18. A greater understanding of this may help us to make changes which could improve the experience of involuntary psychiatric treatment for children and young people. Lizzie Mitchell is an expert by experience who was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in England under the Mental Health Act (MHA) when she was 16 years old. Here, in discussion with Susan Walker, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, Lizzie reflects on her own experiences alongside wider reflections around the involuntary hospitalisation of young people, including the potential short and long-term impact on mental health, education, friendships, family and identity.

How do decision making and fairness mediate the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion among psychiatric inpatients?

BACKGROUND: Coercion perceived by psychiatric inpatients is not exclusively determined by formal measures such as involuntary admissions, seclusion or restraint, but is also associated with patients' characteristics and professionals' attitude. AIMS: This study examined how inpatients' involvement in the decision making process, the respect of their decision making preference, and their feeling of having been treated fairly mediate the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion both at admission and during hospital stay. METHODS: Mediation analysis were performed in order to study the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion among 230 patients, voluntarily and involuntarily admitted in six psychiatric hospitals. RESULTS: 32.2% of the participants were involuntarily hospitalised. Taken individually, stronger participants' involvement in decision making process, better respect for their decision making preference and higher level of perceived fairness partially mediated the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion by reducing the level of the latter both at admission and during the hospitalisation. In multiple mediator models, only involvement and respect played an important role at admission. During the hospitalisation, perceived fairness was the most relevant mediator, followed by involvement in decision making. CONCLUSIONS: During psychiatric hospitalisation patients' involvement in decision making, respect of their decision making preference and perceived fairness determined the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion, but not in the same way at admission and during the stay. Involving patients in decision making and treating them fairly may be more relevant than taking account of their decision making preference in order to reduce perceived coercion.

[Psychiatry without coercion-Exclude the coercion or the patients?] / Psychiatrie ohne Zwang ­ den Zwang ausschließen oder Patient:innen?

BACKGROUND: With reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), a fundamental change in psychiatric care in Germany was proposed in 2019 by Zinkler and von Peter, supported by a legal perspective from Kammeier, which has since led to controversial debates. Essentially, the aim is not only to reduce coercion in psychiatry to a minimum, but also to fundamentally exclude it in a psychiatry that only provides care. The function as an agent of social control is to be returned from psychiatry to state institutions. Psychiatric hospitals will only admit patients with their consent; patients who refuse therapy will not be admitted regardless of their capacity for self-determination and will remain untreated or, if they have committed a criminal offence or threaten to commit a criminal offence, they will be taken into custody or imprisoned in accordance with the legal regulations applicable to all people. There they will receive psychiatric care if they so wish. AIM OF THE PAPER: The paper outlines the background of this concept, including international sources, traces the discussion in German specialist literature and takes a critical look at it. RESULTS: The criticism is primarily directed against the fact that responsibility for a relevant proportion of psychiatric patients would be handed over to the police and judiciary and that, as a result, two realities of care would be established that would considerably differ in terms of quality. CONCLUSION: Arguments are put forward in favor of retaining the function of social control and considerations are suggested as to how caring coercion can be largely minimized.

OPCAT: How an international treaty regarding torture is relevant to the Australian mental health system.

The United Nations Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture visits signatory nations to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). Its role is to monitor and support signatory nations in implementing and complying with the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). In October 2022, the United Nations Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture visited Australia but was barred from visiting mental health wards in Queensland and all detention facilities in New South Wales leading to the termination of its visit. This breach of Australia's obligations under the OPCAT presents a significant setback for the rights of people with mental illness and other involuntarily detained populations. This piece sets out to demonstrate the relevance of OPCAT to the mental health system in Australia. Individuals who are detained for compulsory treatment in locked facilities such as acute psychiatric inpatient wards and forensic mental health facilities are deprived of their liberty, often out of public view. Thus, it highlights the ethical and professional obligations of all mental health professionals, especially psychiatrists, to safeguard the human rights of individuals being detained in mental health facilities as enshrined in Australia's international legal obligations under the OPCAT. Adhering to these obligations diminishes the risk of future human rights violations of people with mental illness.

[Coercive Medication: Who, how, how Long? A Retrospective Chart Analysis in 6 Hospital Sites in Baden-Wuerttemberg]. / Ärztliche Zwangsbehandlung: Wer, wie, wie lange? Eine retrospektive Fallanalyse an sechs Klinikstandorten in Baden-Württemberg.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the practice of coercive treatment in Germany after the Constiutional Court's decision in 2011. METHODS: The documented emergency treatments (N=86) and judicially approved compulsory treatments (N=62) in 2015 and 2016 at 6 hospital locations in Baden-Württemberg were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: Patients had an average of 8 previous psychiatric hospitalisations with a cumulative duration of 645 days on average and 87% had a psychotic disorder. 34% received subsequent compulsory treatment within one year. The median duration of compulsory treatment was 15 days. 92% of the patients were taking an antipsychotic at discharge, 45% received further treatment in a day hospital or a psychiatric outpatient clinic. CONCLUSION: Coercive treatment affects a relatively small, chronically severely ill group of patients and is frequently recurrent among them. For considerable part, no consecutive treatment setting can be established after discharge.

Emergency-related inpatient admissions in child and adolescent psychiatry: comparison of clinical characteristics of involuntary and voluntary admissions from a survey in Bavaria, Germany.

Emergency inpatient admissions of children and adolescents are more difficult if the patient is admitted involuntarily and/or the caregivers or custodians of institutional care are absent. The present study aimed to clinically characterize involuntary versus voluntary admissions by examining the reasons for presentation and associated factors. We retrospectively analyzed patients who presented to the emergency department of a hospital for child and adolescent psychiatry in Bavaria, Germany, and were admitted as inpatients for crisis intervention in the 4th quarter of 2014-2018. Reasons for presentation, clinical and sociodemographic characteristics, and type of admission (voluntary versus involuntary) were analyzed for 431 emergency inpatient admissions. A total of 106 (24.6%) patients were involuntarily admitted. In a binominal logistic regression, presentation due to alcohol consumption, deviant social behavior, and psychosocial burden was positively associated, whereas difficulties at school and depression were negatively associated, with the likelihood of involuntary admission. 58.5% of the 123 unaccompanied patients were admitted involuntarily. Reasons for the presentation of unaccompanied and voluntary inpatient admissions were suicidal thoughts, psychosocial burden, and externalized aggression. A substantial number of child and adolescent psychiatric admissions represent emergency admissions. Involuntarily admitted patients and unaccompanied children/adolescents represent a non-negligible proportion of clinical routine and the clinical and legal background factors need to be further clarified in future studies. This study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (24 September 2019, DRKS00017689).

[Cantonal Differences in The Implementation of Involuntary Admission in Switzerland]. / Kantonale Unterschiede bei der Umsetzung der fürsorgerischen Unterbringung in der Schweiz.

OBJECTIVE: To examine sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of persons hospitalized in five psychiatric hospitals from regions with different structural characteristics compared with persons hospitalized voluntarily. METHODS: Descriptive analyses of routine data on approximately 57000 cases of 33000 patients treated for a primary ICD-10 psychiatric diagnosis at one of the participating hospitals from 2016 to 2019. RESULTS: Admission rates, length of stay, rates of further coercive measures, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the affected persons differ between the different regions. CONCLUSION: There are considerable regional differences between regulations and implementation of the admission procedures and the sample. Causal relationships between regional specifics and the results cannot be inferred.

[Involuntary Psychiatric Hospital Admissions According to Public Law - A Retrospective Analysis]. / Öffentlich-rechtliche Zwangseinweisungen in eine psychiatrische Versorgungsklinik ­ Eine retrospektive Untersuchung.

OBJECTIVE: We provide an empirical survey of the current practice on involuntary psychiatric hospital admission. METHODS: Bases on clinical case records, we performed a retrospective analysis of 346 cases with an involuntary hospital admission according to public law in 2020 (21.0% of all inpatient admissions in this period). RESULTS: Announcement of suicide was the most frequent cause for involuntary hospital admission (45.1%). Most common diagnoses were substance-related disorders (30.1%), stress-related disorders (19.9%), and schizophrenic psychoses (18.8%). Only 12.7% of the involuntary admissions resulted in a further involuntary hospitalization, whereas 44.5% of all episodes were followed by a discharge within 24 hours. CONCLUSION: In many cases, involuntary hospital admissions are reactions to suicidal crises. It will be interesting to see, if the introduction of alternative low-threshold services can help to reduce the frequency of such admissions.

Risk factors for involuntary admission in a Romanian patient sample.

BACKGROUND: Involuntary admission is widely used in psychiatry, usually requiring that the patient present an imminent danger to himself or others. Previous studies have established several predictors for involuntary admission, but they have been almost exclusively conducted in Western European or North American countries. By contrast, data on this topic from Eastern European countries is virtually absent. Historically, involuntary admission has been often used as a tool for political repression in Romania before the fall of the communist regime. While there have been significant changes in the legal framework in the last 30 years, there is still no real-world data to build upon. METHODS: We analyzed a sample of 177 patients admitted to the "Alexandru Obregia" psychiatric hospital in Bucharest between November 2022 and January 2023, of which 49.7% (88) were involuntary hospitalizations. We collected socio-demographic and clinical data by both by direct interview, and by consulting patient records, attending physicians and relatives. RESULTS: Socio-demographic factors predictive for involuntary admission were unemployment, lower income, and urban living. Of the clinical variables analyzed, diagnosis of psychosis or mania on admission carried increased risk of involuntary hospitalization, as did nonadherence to treatment, higher disease severity and aggression. Hospital presentation by police or ambulance carried significant additional risk compared to self-referral. CONCLUSION: Certain categories of patients are considerably more likely to be involuntarily hospitalized and there appears to be considerable interrelatedness between the identified risk factors.

Association between perceived coercion and perceived level of information in involuntarily admitted patients: Results from a multicenter observational study in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Involuntary admissions (IA) to psychiatric hospitals are controversial because they interfere with people's autonomy. In some situations, however, they appear to be unavoidable. Interestingly, not all patients perceive the same degree of coercion during IA. The aim of this study was to assess whether the level of knowledge about one's own IA is associated with perceived coercion. METHODS: This multicenter observational study was conducted on n = 224 involuntarily admitted patients. Interviews were conducted at five study centers from April 2021 to November 2021. The Macarthur Admission Experience Survey was administered to assess perceived coercion. Knowledge of involuntary admission, perceptions of information received, and attitudes towards legal aspects of involuntary admission were also assessed. RESULTS: We found that higher levels of knowledge about IA were negatively associated with perceived coercion at admission. Perceived coercion did not differ between study sites. Only half of the patients felt well informed about their IA, and about a quarter found the information they received difficult to understand. DISCUSSION: Legislation in Switzerland requires that patients with IA be informed about the procedure. Strategies to improve patients' understanding of the information given to them about IA might be helpful to reduce perceived coercion, which is known to be associated with negative attitudes towards psychiatry, a disturbed therapeutic relationship, avoidance of psychiatry, and the risk of further coercion.

COVID-19, Mink-Bowman, and Court-Ordered Psychiatric Services in Oregon.

COVID-19 strongly affected referral of individuals from Oregon's courts and the ability of Oregon State Hospital (OSH) to accept patients. Despite acceleration in the decline in civil commitment, competency to stand trial (CST) admissions increased, causing a bed crisis at OSH, which in turn affected community hospitals and jails. In 1993, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals mandated admission of jail detainees to OSH within seven days after a judicial order for CST evaluation or restoration. During COVID, as the number of such patients increased to crisis proportions, average jail detention times exceeded seven days. An inevitable judicial process intensified in the U.S. District Court of Oregon after OSH requested a COVID-related modification of the seven-day limit. This commentary demonstrates more clearly than in the past that there is a negative correlation between civil commitment and competency restoration as components of an interrelated system. After updating the situation in Oregon, this article ends with suggested interventions to improve Oregon's civil and criminal commitment processes, hoping for better care of patients and improved administration of justice.