Rapprochement and Reform: Overcoming Factionalism in Policy Making for Serious Mental Illness.

This article traces the history of factionalism in policy making and advocacy for persons with serious mental illness from deinstitutionalization to the present. The authors draw on deliberative democratic theory to illustrate how factionalist advocacy causes advocates and policy makers to fail in their duties to represent and develop policy in support of people with serious mental illness. The authors discuss how this factionalism has bred distrust and undermined efforts to address the needs of people with serious mental illness. They propose the formation of a Public Mental Health Policy Commission, guided by principles of deliberative democracy, to overcome factionalism and to improve policy making to meet the needs of people with serious mental illness. The commission must include a diverse array of stakeholders, especially individuals with lived experience of serious mental illness.

Expanding Therapeutic Jurisprudence Across the Federal Judiciary.

A patchwork of drug courts and other problem-solving courts currently exists to divert individuals with mental illness and substance use disorders away from the criminal justice system. We call for a broader implementation of problem-solving courts, particularly at the federal level, that would operate according to the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence (i.e., a framework that aims to maximize the health benefits of judicial and legislative policies and practices). Expanding federal problem-solving courts will better serve individuals with mental illness and substance use disorders in the federal criminal justice system and allow them to benefit from rehabilitation and diversion programs. This effort will also signal that the federal judiciary has recognized the criminal justice system's failure to address inmate mental health care, and that it is willing to institute changes to provide appropriate, evidence-based interventions.

Jailers at the Bedside: Ethical Conflicts in Provision of Community Hospital Care for Incarcerated Individuals.

Incarcerated individuals in the United States are frequently transferred to hospitals in the community setting for specialized medical care beyond the capability of on-site facilities. Despite the widespread prevalence of this practice, hospitals set their own policies for the care of these vulnerable patients, which are often in conflict with broadly accepted principles of medical ethics. This article explores common practices of community hospitals in caring for incarcerated individuals and argues for the need for further research and, ultimately, reform in this neglected area.

A pragmatist's guide to the assessment of decision-making capacity.

Choice, understanding, appreciation and reasoning compose the standard model of decision-making capacity. Difficulties in determining capacity can arise when patients exhibit partial impairment. We suggest that a pragmatic approach, focusing on how capacity status affects the ultimate decision to override the patient's wishes, can help evaluators resolve difficult cases.Declaration of interestNone.

Comparing Patient, Clinician, and Caregiver Perceptions of Care for Early Psychosis: A Free Listing Study.

Models for early psychosis intervention often involve shared decision-making among patients, their caregivers, and clinicians. However, this process rests on a shared understanding of constructs, experiences, and language. This study examined how various aspects of early psychosis care were conceptualized by those involved in the help-seeking process, and the extent to which their perceptions aligned with one another. We conducted a free listing study to systematically explore perceptions of the help-seeking process and management of psychosis-related symptoms among a sample of 65 patients, caregivers, and clinicians at an early psychosis intervention clinic. Results indicated varying levels of agreement between different roles on getting or giving help, taking medications, factors influencing symptom management, and thoughts regarding the future. These findings highlight important differences and emphasize a need for further exploration of how stakeholder perceptions may influence decisions surrounding the care of individuals experiencing early psychosis.

County Jail or Psychiatric Hospital? Ethical Challenges in Correctional Mental Health Care.

Approximately 20% of the roughly 2.5 million individuals incarcerated in the United States have a serious mental illness (SMI). As a result of their illnesses, these individuals are often more likely to commit a crime, end up incarcerated, and languish in correctional settings without appropriate treatment. The objective of the present study was to investigate how correctional facility personnel reconcile the ethical challenges that arise when housing and treating individuals with SMI. Four focus groups and one group interview were conducted with employees ( n = 24) including nurses, clinicians, correctional officers, administrators, and sergeants at a county jail in Pennsylvania. Results show that jail employees felt there are too many inmates with SMI in jail who would benefit from more comprehensive treatment elsewhere; however, given limited resources, employees felt they were doing the best they can. These findings can inform mental health management and policy in a correctional setting.