Opportunities and challenges of self-binding directives: A comparison of empirical research with stakeholders in three European countries.

BACKGROUND: Self-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include a clause in which mental health service users consent in advance to involuntary hospital admission and treatment under specified conditions. Medical ethicists and legal scholars identified various potential benefits of SBDs but have also raised ethical concerns. Until recently, little was known about the views of stakeholders on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs. AIMS: This article aims to foster an international exchange on SBDs by comparing recent empirical findings on stakeholders' views on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. METHOD: Comparisons between the empirical findings were drawn using a structured expert consensus process. RESULTS: Findings converged on many points. Perceived opportunities of SBDs include promotion of autonomy, avoidance of personally defined harms, early intervention, reduction of admission duration, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, involvement of persons of trust, avoidance of involuntary hospital admission, addressing trauma, destigmatization of involuntary treatment, increase of professionals' confidence, and relief for proxy decision-makers. Perceived challenges include lack of awareness and knowledge, lack of support, undue influence, inaccessibility during crisis, lack of cross-agency coordination, problems of interpretation, difficulties in capacity assessment, restricted therapeutic flexibility, scarce resources, disappointment due to noncompliance, and outdated content. Stakeholders tended to focus on practical challenges and did not often raise fundamental ethical concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders tend to see the implementation of SBDs as ethically desirable, provided that the associated challenges are addressed.

Personal recovery suits us all: A study in patients with non-affective psychosis, unaffected siblings and healthy controls.

Personal recovery transcends illness and is a unifying human experience. Core elements in personal recovery are hope, meaning, and rebuilding oneself. Here we aim to investigate whether factors associated with personal recovery in patients with non-affective psychosis, unaffected siblings and healthy controls are similar. We investigated the association between personal recovery and resilience, social support, socio-demographic and illness-related variables in 580 patients, 630 siblings, and 351 healthy controls who participated in the Genetic Risk and Outcome of Psychosis (GROUP) study. Bi-variate associations between personal recovery and individual variables were assessed and multiple linear regression analyses were performed to estimate the proportion of variance in personal recovery that could be accounted for by the predictors and to investigate which predictors independently added to the model. Positive self was significantly and independently associated with personal recovery in all three groups. Pro-active action taking also seems to be important. Social functioning significantly contributed to explained variance in patients and siblings. Regarding illness-related factors, depressive symptoms had impact on personal recovery in both patients and siblings, whereas positive symptoms only did in siblings. The findings imply that not only personal recovery itself, but also some associated factors are universally human and suit us all. This means that patients and non-patients share supportive factors of personal recovery which may help to reach mutual understanding. Recovery-oriented practices and mental health services might be more effective when focusing also on improving self-image, functional coping styles and generating social interaction, next to the reduction of affective symptoms.

[Assessment of decision-making competence; article for educational and training purposes]. / Wilsbekwaamheid beoordelen.

Care providers are frequently confronted with complicated questions about decision-making competence. This article offers tools to help them to deal with those questions. We also look closely at the underlying legal aspects of competence, how and when competence should be assessed, who is responsible for this assessment and which tools are available for this process.

The Relationship Between Clinical and Personal Recovery in Patients With Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Patients describe experiencing personal recovery despite ongoing symptoms of psychosis. The aim of the current research was to perform a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between clinical and personal recovery in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. A comprehensive OvidSP database search was performed to identify relevant studies. Correlation coefficients of the relationship between clinical and personal recovery were retrieved from primary studies. Meta-analyses were performed, calculating mean weighted effect sizes for the association between clinical and personal recovery, hope, and empowerment. Additionally, associations between positive, negative, affective symptoms, general functioning, and personal recovery were investigated. The results show that heterogeneity across studies was substantial. Random effect meta-analysis of the relationship between symptom severity and personal recovery revealed a mean weighted correlation coefficient of r = -.21 (95% CI = -0.27 to -0.14, P < .001). We found the following mean weighted effect size for positive symptoms r = -.20 (95% CI = -0.27 to -0.12, P < .001), negative symptoms r = -.24 (95% CI = -0.33 to -0.15, P < .001), affective symptoms r = -.34 (95% CI = -0.44 to -0.24, P < .001) and functioning r = .21 (95% CI = -0.09 to 0.32, P < .001). The results indicate a significant small to medium association between clinical and personal recovery. Psychotic symptoms show a smaller correlation than affective symptoms with personal recovery. These findings suggest that clinical and personal recovery should both be considered in treatment and outcome monitoring of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

The impact of affective symptoms on personal recovery of patients with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Clinical recovery is often defined as remission of symptoms. Personal recovery is described as growing beyond the catastrophic effects of mental illness, sometimes despite ongoing symptoms. AIMS: To examine the relationship between the severity of clinical symptom domains and personal recovery in patients with severe mental illness (SMI). METHODS: Symptom severity and personal recovery of 105 outpatients with SMI at Mentrum, part of Arkin Institute for Mental Health in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, were assessed using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Expanded Version (BPRS-E) and the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM). Correlation and regression analyses were used to investigate the associations. RESULTS: The multiple regression analysis showed that only affective symptoms significantly predicted personal recovery, whereas neither positive nor negative symptom severity added to the explained variance in the model. CONCLUSION: The association between affective symptoms and personal recovery in patients with SMI implies that treatment of affective symptoms may advance personal recovery, and/or support of personal recovery may improve mood, whereas focussing on treatment of psychotic symptoms might not be the key to personal recovery. More research is needed to elucidate causal interrelations.

[The assessment of competence in cognitively impaired elderly persons: a closer look at the vignette method]. / De beoordeling van wilsbekwaamheid bij ouderen met en zonder cognitieve stoornissen: de vignetmethode nader bekeken.

This article focuses on the assessment of competence of elderly persons both with and without cognitive impairment. In total 113 patients of a geriatric clinic were interviewed. Competence was assessed by using two clinical vignettes, representing respectively a hypothetical treatment situation with mild consequences (endoscopy) and one with severe consequences (operation for colon cancer). Competence was evaluated using the following standards: the ability to evidence a choice, the ability to understand a situation, the ability to reason about a choice, and the ability to appreciate a situation. In the vignette with mild consequences, elderly persons with cognitive impairment performed significantly worse on understanding, reasoning and appreciation than elderly persons without cognitive impairment. In the vignette with severe consequences, elderly persons with cognitive impairment performed significantly worse only on understanding as compared to elderly persons without cognitive impairment. No differences were found for reasoning and appreciation between the cognitively impaired and non-impaired elderly persons. We conclude that competence is less limited by cognitive impairment when assessed in a treatment situation with severe consequences. Therefore, the use of hypothetical vignettes should be carefully reconsidered.

Instruments to assess decision-making capacity: an overview.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this article is to evaluate and describe instruments for assessing decision-making capacity in psychiatry and psychogeriatrics, and to evaluate them for use in daily practice. METHODS: The instruments were selected in Medline articles. We focus on the relationship between these instruments and the concept of competence, represented in the following elements: context in which an instrument is developed, disclosure of information, standards to assess decision-making capacity, the scale or threshold model, and validity and reliability. RESULTS: The developmental context influences how information is provided and standards defined. Although it is not clear how decision-making capacity relates to competency judgments, most instruments provide good reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of the different instruments opens directions for future research. Although instruments can never replace a physician's judgment, they may provide a clear starting point for a discussion on competence. In daily practice assessments, attention should be given to information disclosure, the influence of our own normative values in evaluating standards of decision-making capacity, and the relation between decision-making capacity and competence.