Involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation - differences and similarities between patients detained under the mental health act and according to the legal guardianship legislation.

BACKGROUND: Involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation occurs under different legal premises. According to German law, detention under the Mental Health Act (MHA) is possible in cases of imminent danger of self-harm or harm to others, while detention according to the legal guardianship legislation (LGL) serves to prevent self-harm if there is considerable but not necessarily imminent danger. This study aims to compare clinical, sociodemographic and environmental socioeconomic differences and similarities between patients hospitalised under either the MHA or LGL. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective health records analysis of all involuntarily hospitalised cases in the four psychiatric hospitals of the city of Cologne, Germany, in 2011. Of the 1,773 cases, 87.3% were detained under the MHA of the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia and 6.4% were hospitalised according to the federal LGL. Another 6.3% of the cases were originally admitted under the MHA, but the legal basis of detention was converted to LGL during the inpatient psychiatric stay (MHA→LGL cases). We compared sociodemographic, clinical, systemic and environmental socioeconomic (ESED) variables of the three groups by means of descriptive statistics. We also trained and tested a machine learning-based algorithm to predict class membership of the involuntary modes of psychiatric inpatient care. RESULTS: Cases with an admission under the premises of LGL lived less often on their own, and they were more often retired compared to MHA cases. They more often had received previous outpatient or inpatient treatment than MHA cases, they were more often diagnosed with a psychotic disorder and they lived in neighbourhoods that were on average more socially advantaged. MHA→LGL cases were on average older and more often retired than MHA cases. More often, they had a main diagnosis of an organic mental disorder compared to both MHA and LGL cases. Also, they less often received previous psychiatric inpatient treatment compared to LGL cases. The reason for detention (self-harm or harm to others) did not differ between the three groups. The proportion of LGL and MHA cases differed between the four hospitals. Effect sizes were mostly small and the balanced accuracy of the Random Forest was low. CONCLUSION: We found some plausible differences in patient characteristics depending on the legal foundation of the involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation. The differences relate to clinical, sociodemographic and socioeconomical issues. However, the low effect sizes and the limited accuracy of the machine learning models indicate that the investigated variables do not sufficiently explain the respective choice of the legal framework. In addition, we found some indication for possibly different interpretation and handling of the premises of the law in practice. Our findings pose the need for further research in this field.

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.

Mental Health Acts - Perspectives from Mental Health and Law in Ireland and in Portugal.

Mental health legislation is a cornerstone to ensure that individuals with severe mental illness access proper care and treatment. Each country establishes their own legislation. We aimed to compare the Portuguese and Irish Mental Health Acts (MHAs). We reviewed the respective MHA and the literature. While the definition of mental disorder is similar in general, who, where, when and how one can be detained differ. Judges decide on detentions in Portugal, while consultant psychiatrists may do so in Ireland. Community-based compulsory treatment is possible and used in Portugal while it is not possible in Ireland. Pros and cons of each approach are discussed with a reflection on the protection of human rights. Further theoretical and empirical studies comparing systems in different jurisdictions would be helpful to deepen our understanding of the legislation and guide on how to better serve individuals with severe mental illness.

Impact of statutory revisions to family-petitioned civil commitment in South Korea.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the impact of statutory revisions in 2016 which aimed to enhance procedural justice within the process of civil commitment for persons diagnosed with mental illnesses (PDMI) in South Korea. These changes included requiring that PDMI pose a threat of danger to self or others and the need for treatment simultaneously as criteria for petitioning civil commitment. Additionally, the revision established a public entity to oversee the legitimacy of petitions to involuntarily commit PDMI to inpatient treatment. Despite these statutory changes, families providing care for PDMI still appear to depend on civil commitment as a way to seek respite from care burden, not necessarily to respond to psychiatric emergencies involving dangerousness. This practice seems to be aided by processes within the public entity providing oversight. Due to such barriers we hypothesized that, even after the statutory revision in 2016, PDMI who had been civilly committed following petitions from families will not exhibit elevated dangerousness compared to PDMI who had never been hospitalized during the same period. METHODS: Trained interviewers recruited 331 participants self-identified as PDMI from psychiatric rehabilitation agencies in the community and aided them in completing a survey including measures of self-reported hospitalization history, suicidality, and aggression toward others. Participants were classified into four groups: Family-petition committed (FPC) group (n = 30, 9.1%), voluntarily hospitalized (VH) group (n = 34, 10.3%), public-petition committed (PPC) group (n = 31, 9.4%), and never hospitalized (NH) group (n = 236, 71.3%). We conducted logistic regression analyses to compare self-reported dangerousness between groups with the NH group as the reference group. RESULTS: In the past 12 months, 43.5% of PDMI participants had self-reported behaviors that may have met the dangerousness criteria for civil commitment. Controlling for confounding factors, the PPC group was 2.96 times and 3.02 times as likely to report suicidal ideation and physical aggression, respectively, compared to the NH group. However, as hypothesized, the FPC group did not differ from the NH group on any indicator of self-reported dangerousness. CONCLUSION: The findings were based on cross-sectional correlational data and should not be viewed as conclusive evidence that the 2016 statutory revision is ineffective in preventing family-petitioned civil commitment in cases where dangerousness is not apparent. Nevertheless, these findings encourage further empirical studies that illuminate the etiology of procedural justice in civil commitments petitioned by family members and that assess factors and contexts that promote the consideration of least coercive treatments, rather than resorting to involuntary hospitalization when psychiatric emergencies arise.

[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.

'I was going into it blind': Nearest Relatives, legal literacy, and the Mental Health Act 1983.

Eligible relatives are given rights and powers in the compulsory treatment of people with mental health problems in several international jurisdictions, including within England and Wales. However, little attention has been given to whether relatives feel legally literate or competent to fulfil such roles. This article examines this issue through focussing on the experiences of Nearest Relatives, who are given rights and powers during Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) assessments for compulsory admission in England and Wales. Interviews with nineteen Nearest Relatives in England were conducted and were thematically analysed. Three themes were identified. First, NRs spoke about their awareness and knowledge of the role. They predominantly reported negative experiences in which they received no or little information. They also reported that professionals assumed they possessed legal knowledge, and their legal knowledge was largely self-taught. Secondly, NRs reported uncertainty about their own rights and powers, noting the role lacked status or informational or emotional support. Third, NRs highlighted areas for legal reform, stating that the NR role was important, but required specialist support systems for NRs. The findings of this study indicate greater attention needs to be given by law and policy makers to support relatives' understanding of their rights and powers under the MHA, if the NR role is to be effective in helping to safeguard patient rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. These include the right in Article 5 not to be arbitrarily deprived of one's liberty and the right to a private and family life in Article 8. Legislators also need to take account of these factors when considering proposals to reform mental health law in England and Wales.

The influence of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities on the European court of human rights in the area of mental health law: Divergence and unexplored potential.

This article explores how the European Court of Human Rights has applied the norms of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in the area of mental health law. The European Court was initially receptive to the CRPD, including the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities' call for a repeal of legislation permitting involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation, but later distanced itself from it. The CRPD has nevertheless influenced how the European Court approached (a) involuntary hospitalisation, (b) separating detention from treatment, (c) restraints and other forms of ill-treatment in institutions, and (d) disability-neutral detention based on disability. Despite the two treaty bodies' different jurisprudential methodology and their different assumptions about the role of medical and legal professionals, the CRPD can continue to influence the European Court in areas such as less restrictive alternatives to coercive treatment, the relevance of capacity, and the importance of personal integrity for mental health treatment.

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.

[Clinical and regulatory challenges of forced hospitalization in Chile under the new Mental Health Law]. / Desafíos clínicos y normativos de la internación forzada en Chile, en virtud de la nueva Ley de Salud Mental.

Forced hospitalization is a common practice in psychiatry. It involves limiting the patient's freedom of movement in a clinical context without expressing informed consent, causing stress to the family and support network. Thus, forced hospitalization may cause violations, disturbances, or threats to the human rights of a vulnerable population. Considering this clinical reality, the present study seeks to analyze the current law on this subject in Chile compared to the international human rights guidelines. The analysis included a review of legal documents and referenced scientific articles. The new law No. 21,331 establishes a more demanding standard for the origin of forced internment, shortening the distance concerning the human rights guidelines regarding intellectual disability. The incoming development of the regulations mandated by the law could fill in the gaps in several situations that may arise and clarify fuzzy points. The key stakeholders' participation level will be critical in this matter.

Admission of a minor to a psychiatric hospital under Polish law. Part I. / Przyjecie maloletniego do szpitala psychiatrycznego w mysl polskiego prawa. Czesc I.

Within the scope of mental health protection, numerous practical problems arise concerning the issue of providing health services to a minor. Admission of a minor to a psychiatric hospital is associated in practice with numerous doubts. This part of the article describes the conditions of admission to hospital with the consent of the patient. It distinguishes and accurately describes situations where a minor is under or over 16 years of age. In addition, it explains situations where there is a contradiction of declarations of will by legal guardians in relation to admission, their inability to perform legal acts, or a contradiction of the statements of the minor and guardian. It also addresses the aspect of receiving written consent during the COVID-19 epidemic.

High-Risk Medicolegal Conditions in Pediatric Emergency Medicine.

The top 5 reasons for pediatric malpractice are cardiac or cardiorespiratory arrest, appendicitis, disorder of male genital organs, encephalopathy, and meningitis. Malpractice is most likely to result from an "error in diagnosis." Claims involving a "major permanent injury" were more likely to pay out money, but of all claims, only 30% result in a monetary pay out. Consideration of "high-risk misses" may help to direct a history, examination, testing, and discharge instructions.

Gravely Disabled: The Vestigial Prong of 5150 Designations.

Effective July 1, 1972, California's Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the U.S. named after its authors, State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman and State Senators Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short, the LPS Act sought to "end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health disorder"; to "provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with mental health disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism"; and to "guarantee and protect public safety." Despite citing to these articles of intent, the LPS Act violates its own legislative intent through its inclusion of "gravely disabled" in its enforcement of involuntary psychiatric hold designations (also known as "5150 designations"). First, police officers are not required to make a medical diagnosis of a mental health disorder at the time of a 5150 designation; the broad scope of "gravely disabled" increases the number of persons police officers can involuntarily transport, increasing the likelihood of inappropriate and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health disorders. Second, the broad scope of "gravely disabled" produces an onslaught of 5150-designated persons (whether improperly designated or not) being sent to LPS-designated hospitals with limited resources (e.g., lack of beds and psychiatric staff); this results in patients waiting for an inordinate amount of time for a psychiatric evaluation and/or a hospital bed. Third, it is unclear whether the LPS Act sought to provide protection for the mentally ill or to provide protection from the mentally ill in its guarantee of protecting "public safety"; the inclusion of "gravely disabled" in 5150 designations indicates that the LPS Act provided the public with a duplicitous means of removing the mentally ill, impoverished, and houseless from the streets under the guise of "public safety." This Paper suggests the following to help remedy the effects of implementing the broadly defined "gravely disabled" in 5150 designations: (1) Remove "gravely disabled" from the 5150 criteria; (2) integrate the community with mental health advocacy efforts by creating outreach and education programs; and (3) implement a client-centric approach to interacting with persons with mental health disorders through restorative policing and the establishment of a restorative court.

A Study into the Operation of the Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal.

The Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal makes difficult decisions regarding involuntary treatment of people with mental illness, applying strict legislative criteria against a backdrop of fundamental human rights considerations. This article reports on focus group research with lawyers and advocates for people with mental illness who appear before the Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal. Participants expressed concerns regarding the manner in which decisions are made. For example, participants said that their clients' views on the side effects of treatment do not receive adequate consideration when involuntary treatment is authorised. We review these concerns in the light of applicable legal obligations, including those arising from human rights law. We conclude that if these concerns are accurate, some adjustments to the Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal's decision-making processes are required.

Experiences of Court Clinicians Who Perform Civil Commitment Evaluations for Substance Use Disorders.

Civil commitment for substance use disorders is an increasingly used intervention to mitigate the risks associated with severe substance use. Although court clinicians play a vital role in helping courts determine whether respondents meet statutory requirements for commitment, little is known about their experiences conducting these evaluations. In this pilot study, we surveyed all court clinicians who perform evaluations for civil commitment for substance use disorders in Massachusetts, a state with one of the highest rates of such commitments nationally. Court clinicians reported that these evaluations are most frequently ordered for individuals who use heroin and other opioids, alcohol, and cannabis. They reported a recent suicide attempt or drug overdose, intentional physical harm to another, use of dangerous weapon, and driving while intoxicated as the behaviors most likely to satisfy the statutory requirement of imminent risk. At the same time, many court clinicians consider a much broader range of behaviors as constituting imminent risk, and many reported having endorsed commitment on one or more occasions in the absence of statutory criteria being satisfied. These findings underscore the need for additional research on the performance of civil commitment evaluations for substance use disorder and standards for such evaluations.

Involuntary psychiatric hospitalization in Italy: critical issues in the application of the provisions of law.

Involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation in Italy raises some critical forensic issues. We analysed the sociodemographic, psychopathological, and behavioural characteristics of involuntarily hospitalised psychiatric patients, and the effectiveness of the juridical procedure of guarantee. Case files (n = 2796) related to involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation (IPH) at the Office of the Tutelary Judge of the Ordinary Court of Rome (Italy) between January 2013 and May 2016 were analysed. For each case file sociodemographic, clinical and procedural information were collected. The sample included 53.7% men, patients had a mean age of 41.8 ± 13.9. Most of the IPH proposal certificates reported more than one reason, among which the most frequent were symptoms referring to a psychotic dimension (54.8%), agitation (38.0%), and symptoms of bipolar and related disorders (26.3%) Female patients showed a higher prevalence of symptoms of the bipolar spectrum (F = 29.7%, M = 23.3%; p < 0.05), while male patients showed a higher prevalence of aggressive behaviour (F = 7.7%, M = 12.6%; p < 0.01). Over 85% of the IPH proposal certificates did not explicitly mention issues related to adherence to care, which is the second criterium requested for IH (treatment refusal) and up to 7.3% of the proposals were not properly motivated. However, only 0.8% cases were not validated by the Tutelary Judge. Possible issues in the IPH procedures emerged since a significant number of certifications showed poor concordance with law- criteria for involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation. Despite this evidence, the low rate of unvalidated procedures by the Tutelary Judge, suggests a possible limitation of this form of guarantee.

The Early Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Acute Care Mental Health Services.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the effects of COVID-19 and the lockdown measures adopted in England on patients with acute mental illness. METHODS: The authors analyzed referrals to the crisis resolution and home treatment (CRHT) team and inpatient admissions to acute adult wards, at Leicestershire Partnership National Health Service Trust, an integrated community and mental health trust in the United Kingdom. Number of CRHT referrals and inpatient admissions during a 4-week period starting March 16, 2020 ("COVID-19 period"), was studied and compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019 ("control periods"). Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were compared with those admitted during the 2019 control period. RESULTS: The number of CRHT referrals and inpatient admissions were lower during the COVID-19 period, compared with the control periods, by approximately 12% and 20%, respectively. Patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were significantly more often detained under the Mental Health Act and were considered to pose a risk of aggression. The pattern of diagnoses differed significantly between 2020 and 2019. A higher percentage of patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were diagnosed as having nonaffective psychotic disorders (52% versus 35%) or bipolar disorder (25% versus 15%), and fewer received a diagnosis of depression (8% versus 16%), anxiety disorder (0% versus 3%), adjustment disorder (0% versus 8%), emotionally unstable personality disorder (6% versus 15%), or any other personality disorder (0% versus 5%) (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the pandemic has profoundly affected care by acute mental health services.