Delays in commitment and treatment court proceedings worsen psychiatric and other medical conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Adversarial hearings in hospital commitment and de novo treatment proceedings, or court hearings, delay psychiatric treatment in many jurisdictions. In Massachusetts, the "treatment over objection" process requires a court petition. For state hospital patients, the delay to treatment is an initial 34 day waiting period in addition to continuances of court hearings that extend treatment delays. This study examined the frequency of adverse medical events due to delayed court hearings within a forensic state hospital in the US. METHODS: The study reviewed all (n = 355) treatment petitions filed by a Massachusetts forensic hospital from 2015 and 2016. The incidence and nature of adverse events (e.g. patient/staff assaults, milieu disruptions) and acute medical symptoms (e.g. catatonia, acute psychosis), before and after the Court granted a petition for treatment, were analyzed by two raters. Adverse events included patient and staff assaults, acute psychiatric symptoms, and milieu problems. RESULTS: 82.6 % of treatment petitions led to involuntary treatment, 16.6 % were withdrawn by the medical petition filer, and only 0.8 % petitions were denied by the judge. Adversarial hearings occasioned an average delay of 41 days from treatment petition filing to receipt of standing treatment in addition to statute required delays. Once treatment was court-approved, all types of adverse events were significantly reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Results established that the court treatment hearing scheme exacerbates health and safety risks to patients with serious mental illness. Increasing physician and court personnel awareness of these risks is likely key to enhancing a patient-focused, rights-oriented approach to these matters. This and other recommendations is proposed for jurisdictions that deal with this problem around the world.

Duties toward Patients with Psychiatric Illness.

Patients with psychiatric illness feel the brunt of the intersection of many of our society's and our health care system's disparities, and the vulnerability of this population during the Covid-19 pandemic cannot be overstated. Patients with psychiatric illness often suffer from the stigma of mental illness and receive poor medical care. Many patients with severe and persistent mental illness face additional barriers, including poverty, marginal housing, and food insecurity. Patients who require psychiatric hospitalization now face the risk of transmission of Covid-19 due to the inherent difficulties of social distancing within a psychiatric hospital. Patients whose freedom and self-determination have been temporarily overruled as they receive involuntary psychiatric treatment deserve a setting that maintains their health and safety. While tele-mental health has been rapidly expanded to provide new ways to access psychiatric treatment, some patients may have limitations in technological literacy or access to devices. The social isolation, economic fallout, and potential traumatization related to the current pandemic will disproportionately affect this vulnerable population, and society's duties to them must be considered.

Treatment Delayed is Treatment Denied.

The past few decades have witnessed the steady development of a mental health jurisprudence dedicated to the preservation of human rights. Self-determination and personal autonomy are critical aspects of this perspective, pervading every facet of institutional psychiatric care. Of considerable concern, however, are those cases in which rote procedural approaches produce unintended consequences for the very persons such maneuvers were designed to protect. Delays-inherent in court-based procedures-may ironically lead to an acute illness becoming chronic, and to a single bout of inpatient services being transformed into a lifetime of revolving-door psychiatric admissions. This discussion is not about lawyers or lawyering; rather, it is about the proposition that a better system can and should be devised for advocates who must make do with the options they are dealt. A particularly problematic example is the "Rogers Guardianship" model currently prevalent in Massachusetts. Laws that effectively place on counsel and courts the challenge of second-guessing medical treatment decisions-with minimal latitude for counsel to exercise measured professional judgment-will inevitably generate, and empirically do generate, a degree of delay that ironically deprives patients of the liberation from illness that is the common goal of all stakeholders. Possible solutions to these difficulties are also suggested.

Cross cultural variations in psychiatrists' perception of mental illness: A tool for teaching culture in psychiatry.

A frequent debate in psychiatry is to what extent major psychiatric diagnoses are universal versus unique across cultures. We sought to identify cultural variations between psychiatrists' diagnostic practices of mental illness in Boston Massachusetts and Bangalore, India. We surveyed psychiatrists to identify differences in how frequently symptoms appear in major mental illness in two culturally and geographically different cities. Indian psychiatrists found somatic symptoms like pain, sleep and appetite to be significantly more important in depression and violent and aggressive behavior to be significantly more common in mania than did American psychiatrists. American psychiatrists found pessimism about the future to be more significant in depression and pressured speech and marked distractibility to be more significant in mania than among Indian psychiatrists. Both groups agreed the top four symptoms of psychosis were paranoia, lack of insight, delusions and auditory hallucinations and both groups agreed that visual hallucinations and motor peculiarities to be least significant. Despite a different set of resources, both groups noted similar barriers to mental health care access. However, American psychiatrists found substance abuse to be a significant barrier to care whereas Indian psychiatrists found embarrassing the family was a significant barrier to accessing care. Because psychiatrists see a large volume of individuals across different cultures, their collective perception of most common symptoms in psychiatric illness is a tool in finding cultural patterns.