Opportunities and challenges of self-binding directives: an interview study with mental health service users and professionals in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Self-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include the possibility for service users to consent in advance to compulsory care in future mental health crises. Legal provisions for SBDs exist in the Netherlands since 2008 and were updated in 2020. While ethicists and legal scholars have identified several benefits and risks of SBDs, few data on stakeholder perspectives on SBDs are available. AIMS: The aim of the study was to identify opportunities and challenges of SBDs perceived by stakeholders who have personal or professional experience with legally enforceable SBDs. METHODS: Data collection was carried out in the Netherlands from February 2020 to October 2021 by means of semi-structured interviews. Participants were selected through purposive sampling and snowball methods. Interviews were conducted with mental health service users (n = 7), professionals (n = 13), and an expert on SBD policy (n = 1), resulting in a total number of 21 interviews. The data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Perceived benefits of SBDs included increased autonomy, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, possibility of early intervention and prevention of harm, prevention of compulsory care, reduction of the duration of compulsory care and recovery, mitigation of negative experiences around compulsory care, and guidance for professionals in providing compulsory care. Perceived risks included infeasibility of SBD instructions, difficulty in decision-making around SBD activation, limited accessibility of SBDs, disappointment of service users due to non-compliance with SBDs, and limited evaluation and updating of SBD content. Barriers to SBD completion included lack of knowledge of SBDs among professionals, lack of motivation or insight among service users, and lack of professional support for SBD completion. Facilitators of SBD completion and activation included support for SBD completion, involvement of relatives and peer experts, specification of SBD content, and evaluation of compulsory care and SBD content. The new legal framework was regarded as having both positive and negative effects on SBD implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders who have personal or professional experience with legally enforceable SBDs perceive SBDs as having important benefits and tend not to articulate the fundamental ethical concerns about SBDs which can be found in the ethics and legal literature. Instead, they perceive ethical and practical challenges that can be addressed through the implementation of suitable safeguards.

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.

Self-binding directives under the new Dutch Law on Compulsory Mental Health Care: An analysis of the legal framework and a proposal for reform.

Self-binding directives (SBDs) are a special type of psychiatric advance directive by means of which mental health service users can give advance consent to compulsory hospital admission or treatment during a future mental health crisis. SBDs are legally binding in the Netherlands since 2008. On the 1st of January 2020, the Dutch Law on Special Admissions to Psychiatric Hospitals (Wet bijzondere opnemingen in psychiatrische ziekenhuizen; Bopz) was replaced by the new Law on Compulsory Mental Health Care (Wet verplichte geestelijke gezondheidszorg; Wvggz). This replacement brought with it various changes in the legal arrangement for SBDs. In this article, we expound the changes in the legal arrangement and assess the implications of these changes for the practical feasibility of SBDs. We argue that the procedures for arranging compulsory care based on an SBD in the new law are too complex and time-intensive for SBDs to yield their potential benefits. We close by proposing a workable mechanism of legal authorisation of compulsory care on the basis of an SBD.

Dealing with care disruption in High and Intensive Care wards: From difficult patients to difficult situations.

High and Intensive Care is a relatively new care model in Dutch mental health care for clinical admissions. One of the goals is to keep the admission short. For some patients, this goal is not realized, which results in a long-term admission. Often, this is experienced as a disruption. Disruptions in care processes are frequently defined in terms of patient characteristics. Yet, it may be that other factors play a role. The aim of this study is to gain better insight into the perceptions of care professionals of what is characteristic for disruptions at High and Intensive Care wards and how professionals can deal with these. Qualitative research was performed by means of semi-structured interviews and a focus group with professionals. Results show that a focus on patient characteristics is too narrow and that other factors also play an important role. These factors include challenges in the relation between professionals and the patient, a divided team, and a lack of collaboration with ambulatory care. In order to deal with these factors, professionals should invest in the relationship with the patient, identify destructive team processes early, and improve communication with ambulatory care. It is recommended to develop a monitoring tool that includes all these factors. Another recommendation is to organize structured reflection on dilemmas experienced in care. In conclusion, this study shows the importance of going beyond patient characteristics in order to better understand, identify, and deal with disruption at High and Intensive Care wards.