Appropriateness of psychiatric advance directives facilitated by peer support specialists and clinicians on Assertive Community Treatment teams.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are used to document a person's treatment preferences for a future mental health crisis. Peer support specialists have been proposed to facilitate PADs, but little is known about the quality of peer versus clinician facilitated PADs. AIMS: This study examined whether PAD documents facilitated by peer specialists and non-peer clinicians differed in the mix of treatment requests and refusals and expert ratings of feasibility and consistency. METHODS: Analyses were conducted of content and expert ratings of 72 PAD documents from a randomized trial of PAD facilitation by peers and clinicians on Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams. A count of treatment refusals and requests was used to classify documents as predominantly prescriptive, proscriptive, or balanced. Regression was used to estimate relationships between PAD facilitator type and content. RESULTS: Peer-facilitated PADs were significantly more likely to be predominantly prescriptive than were PADs facilitated by non-peer clinicians. Prescriptive PADs were more likely to receive expert ratings of high feasibility and consistency. CONCLUSIONS: Results should alleviate some clinicians' apprehensions regarding the appropriateness of peer-facilitated PADs, such as the concern that people with lived experience with mental illness might encourage other consumers to use their PAD primarily for treatment refusals.