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.

Effectiveness of a peer-supported crisis intervention to reduce the proportion of compulsory admissions in acute psychiatric crisis interventions in an outreach and outpatient setting: study protocol for an exploratory cluster randomised trial combined with qualitative methods.

INTRODUCTION: Compulsory admissions are associated with feelings of fear, humiliation and powerlessness. The number of compulsory admissions in Germany and other high-income countries has increased in recent years. Peer support has been shown to increase the self-efficacy of individuals with mental health conditions in acute crises and to reduce the use of coercive measures in clinical settings. The objective of this study is to reduce the number of compulsory admissions by involving peer support workers (PSWs) in acute mental health crises in outreach and outpatient settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This one-year intervention is an exploratory, cluster randomised study. Trained PSWs will join the public crisis intervention services (CIS) in two of five regions (the intervention regions) in the city of Bremen (Germany). PSWs will participate in crisis interventions and aspects of the mental health services. They will be involved in developing and conducting an antistigma training for police officers. The remaining three regions will serve as control regions. All individuals aged 18 and older who experience an acute mental health crisis during the operating hours of the regional CIS in the city of Bremen (around 2000 in previous years) will be included in the study. Semistructured interviews will be conducted with PSWs, 30 patients from control and intervention regions, as well as two focus group discussions with CIS staff. A descriptive comparison between all participants in the intervention and control regions will assess the proportion of compulsory admissions in crisis interventions during the baseline and intervention years, including an analysis of temporal changes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Bremen (file 2022-09) on 20 June 2022. The results will be presented via scientific conferences, scientific journals and communicated to policy-makers and practitioners. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00029377.

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.

Abolition of coercion in mental health services - A European survey of feasibility.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Council of Europe agreed to urge member states to take steps toward total abolition of psychiatric coercive measures. AIMS: To test if this aspiration is perceived as realistic and what the alternative would be in the event of a total abolition, we surveyed members of the European FOSTREN network of mental health practitioners and researchers, which is specifically dedicated to exchanging knowledge on reducing psychiatric coercion to its minimum. METHODS: Web-based survey. Categorical responses were analyzed using frequencies, and free text responses were analyzed through thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, out of 167 invitations to FOSTREN network members, 76 responded to the survey (Response Rate 45.5%). A minority (31%) of participating experts dedicated to the reduction of psychiatric coercive measures believed a total abolition to be an achievable goal. A commonly held belief was that total abolition is not achievable because mental health disorders are difficult to treat and may cause violence, necessitating coercion, and there is a need to protect the involved persons from harm. Those responding that complete abolition is achievable argued that the consequences of coercion outweigh any gains and indicated that use of advance directives are sufficient as alternatives to coercion. CONCLUSION: Of a European group of experts specifically dedicated to the reduction of psychiatric coercion who participated in this questionnaire study, a minority believed a total abolition be an achievable goal. The study adds to the empirical evidence of the feasibility of the aspiration to totally abolish involuntary measures in the mental health services from the perspective of experts.

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.

Dual harm: Violent behaviour to others and self-harm behaviour in adults compulsorily admitted to a Dutch psychiatric hospital.

BACKGROUND: Verbal and physical violence in psychiatric hospitals can have harmful consequences for staff members, such as physical injury, traumatisation, and sick leave, and they often accompany involuntary admission. Harm to others may co-occur with self-harm, i.e., dual harm. However, little is known about the association between dual-harm and violent behaviour towards staff members and its clinical outcomes, such as seclusion and rapid tranquilisation after involuntary admission to a psychiatric inpatient unit. METHOD: A convenience sample of patients admitted involuntarily (N = 384; mean age = 48.03, SD = 19.92) between January 2016 and December 2019 in Western Brabant, the Netherlands, was used to design a retrospective file audit. Distinct harm groups, marked by the presence/absence of self- and/or other-harm, were investigated using multivariate linear regression modelling on the seriousness of violent acts and the total length of admission. Logistic regression analyses were used to study the association between harm groups and the administration of rapid tranquilisation, seclusion, and extended involuntary admissions. RESULTS: Several harm groups were identified, including self-harm only, other-harm only, and dual-harm groups. Psychiatric patients admitted to the hospital because of (the risk of) violence towards others had a higher risk of violent incidents during admission and some restrictive measures. In a subgroup of patients with psychotic disorders, patients with dual harm committed the most serious violent incidents compared to those in the other harm groups. CONCLUSION: Distinct harm groups were identified in a sample of involuntarily admitted patients. In a general adult psychiatric setting, patients at risk for violent behaviour, especially dual-harm patients, should be identified and monitored as part of the risk assessment. Future research is needed to explore more clinical correlates in the proposed distinction between harmful groups and to assess long-term prognosis.

Holding the Guardrails on Involuntary Commitment.

In response to the increasing number of mentally ill people experiencing homelessness, some policy-makers have called for the expanded use of involuntary commitment, even for individuals who are not engaging in behaviors that are immediately life-threatening. Yet there is no evidence that involuntary commitment offers long-term benefits, and significant reasons to believe that expanding the practice will cause harm. In addition, these proposals ignore research showing that most people with mental illness have the capacity to make medical decisions for themselves. Rather than expanding the use of involuntary commitment, policy-makers should support approaches proven to decrease the prevalence of homelessness, such as supportive housing. In addition, states should reevaluate their commitment standards for persons who pose no risk of harm to others. One promising approach is Northern Ireland's Mental Health Capacity Act of 2016, which establishes a uniform standard for imposing nonconsensual health care interventions, without any distinction between mental illnesses and other conditions in which capacity might be compromised.

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.

Debate: Involuntary treatment and detention are a necessary part of mental health care for children and young people.

People of all ages are subject to involuntary psychiatric detention and treatment worldwide but there is current discussion about whether this complies with modern human rights law. The use of involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation among children and young people has largely eschewed research and policy interest to date. In this debate section, we hear from people with experience of child mental health services in the UK, USA and low- and middle-income countries about their views on the use of involuntary treatment in young people.

Debate: Involuntary treatment - not whether, but when and what else is needed.

Involuntary treatment is a complex dialectic balancing self-autonomy and the individual's right to consent to treatment with society's duty to protect those suffering from severe mental illness who are at risk of causing harm to themselves or others. When necessary, involuntary treatment should provide evidence-based and medically justified care, with sufficient oversight and due process to protect the rights of patients. Clinically, the issue is not whether involuntary treatment should ever be used, but rather what other services are needed to enhance the quality of care within comprehensive community systems of care, thus limiting or preventing the need for involuntary interventions while also improving the outcomes of individuals affected by severe mental illness.

Debate: The experience of involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation for children and young people.

Involuntary treatment has been reported to be traumatic, stigmatising and frightening, as well as sometimes lifesaving. However, there has been little research into the experiences of people who have been hospitalised involuntarily prior to the age of 18. A greater understanding of this may help us to make changes which could improve the experience of involuntary psychiatric treatment for children and young people. Lizzie Mitchell is an expert by experience who was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in England under the Mental Health Act (MHA) when she was 16 years old. Here, in discussion with Susan Walker, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, Lizzie reflects on her own experiences alongside wider reflections around the involuntary hospitalisation of young people, including the potential short and long-term impact on mental health, education, friendships, family and identity.

How do decision making and fairness mediate the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion among psychiatric inpatients?

BACKGROUND: Coercion perceived by psychiatric inpatients is not exclusively determined by formal measures such as involuntary admissions, seclusion or restraint, but is also associated with patients' characteristics and professionals' attitude. AIMS: This study examined how inpatients' involvement in the decision making process, the respect of their decision making preference, and their feeling of having been treated fairly mediate the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion both at admission and during hospital stay. METHODS: Mediation analysis were performed in order to study the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion among 230 patients, voluntarily and involuntarily admitted in six psychiatric hospitals. RESULTS: 32.2% of the participants were involuntarily hospitalised. Taken individually, stronger participants' involvement in decision making process, better respect for their decision making preference and higher level of perceived fairness partially mediated the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion by reducing the level of the latter both at admission and during the hospitalisation. In multiple mediator models, only involvement and respect played an important role at admission. During the hospitalisation, perceived fairness was the most relevant mediator, followed by involvement in decision making. CONCLUSIONS: During psychiatric hospitalisation patients' involvement in decision making, respect of their decision making preference and perceived fairness determined the relationship between involuntary hospitalisation and perceived coercion, but not in the same way at admission and during the stay. Involving patients in decision making and treating them fairly may be more relevant than taking account of their decision making preference in order to reduce perceived coercion.

[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.

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.

'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.

[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.

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.

Emergency-related inpatient admissions in child and adolescent psychiatry: comparison of clinical characteristics of involuntary and voluntary admissions from a survey in Bavaria, Germany.

Emergency inpatient admissions of children and adolescents are more difficult if the patient is admitted involuntarily and/or the caregivers or custodians of institutional care are absent. The present study aimed to clinically characterize involuntary versus voluntary admissions by examining the reasons for presentation and associated factors. We retrospectively analyzed patients who presented to the emergency department of a hospital for child and adolescent psychiatry in Bavaria, Germany, and were admitted as inpatients for crisis intervention in the 4th quarter of 2014-2018. Reasons for presentation, clinical and sociodemographic characteristics, and type of admission (voluntary versus involuntary) were analyzed for 431 emergency inpatient admissions. A total of 106 (24.6%) patients were involuntarily admitted. In a binominal logistic regression, presentation due to alcohol consumption, deviant social behavior, and psychosocial burden was positively associated, whereas difficulties at school and depression were negatively associated, with the likelihood of involuntary admission. 58.5% of the 123 unaccompanied patients were admitted involuntarily. Reasons for the presentation of unaccompanied and voluntary inpatient admissions were suicidal thoughts, psychosocial burden, and externalized aggression. A substantial number of child and adolescent psychiatric admissions represent emergency admissions. Involuntarily admitted patients and unaccompanied children/adolescents represent a non-negligible proportion of clinical routine and the clinical and legal background factors need to be further clarified in future studies. This study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (24 September 2019, DRKS00017689).