Front line workers' attitudes towards psychiatric advance directives.

Studies have begun to explore provider attitudes' toward psychiatric advance directives (PADs) and how those attitudes are related to provider characteristics. The study gathered attitudinal data from a sample of 193 social workers serving mentally ill adults. Social workers with pro-healthcare power of attorney (HCPA) attitudes were likely to have prior experience with an HCPA and to believe that involuntary treatment violates the NASW Code of Ethics. Social workers are more favorable of HCPAs than advance instructions. The findings suggest that clinical experiences with PADs may positively impact social worker's perceptions of the law.

Understanding the personal and clinical utility of psychiatric advance directives: a qualitative perspective.

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are legal tools that allow competent individuals to declare preferences for future mental health treatment when they may not be capable of doing so as a result of a psychiatric crisis. PADs allow individuals to maintain self-determination during times when they are most vulnerable to loss of autonomy and in need of assistance to make their preferences known and honored. This article describes the content of twenty-eight open-ended, semi-structured qualitative interviews of adults with PADs who have experienced psychiatric crises. The qualitative analysis revealed three major themes from the interviews: (1) PADs as tools for empowerment and self-determination, (2) limited knowledge of PADs among service providers; and (3) difficulties communicating PADs to inpatient staff. In general, many participants expressed enthusiasm of the implementation of PADs but concern regarding clinicians' general lack of awareness about them. Additionally, some consumers discussed discomfort in even mentioning that they had a PAD to clinicians for fear of a negative response from them, or some type of involuntary treatment during their hospitalization. However, participants consistently viewed PADs as a positive tool to promote autonomy with the potential to facilitate stronger patient-provider relationships. Therefore, when working with individuals in psychiatric crisis who have a PAD, and who have never before experienced a sense of control over their own treatment, clinicians must recognize the potential troubling disequilibrium this sense of control may engender. In sum, though the most significant challenges facing the implementation of PADs involve clinicians' familiarity with and education about PADs, much promise for the future growth of PADs lies in the benefits perceived by the patients.

Clinicians' attitudes regarding barriers to the implementation of psychiatric advance directives.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) may include documenting advance instructions (AIs) and/or designating health care agents (HCAs). Laws authorizing PADs have proliferated in the past decade, but there has been little research regarding perceptions of barriers to the implementation of PADs among groups of mental health professionals. METHODS: A total of N=591 mental health professionals (psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers) completed a survey regarding their perceptions of potential barriers to the effective implementation of PADs. RESULTS: Across the three professional groups barriers related to operational features of the work environment (e.g., lack of communication between staff, lack of access to the document) were reported at a higher rate than clinical barriers (e.g., inappropriate treatment requests, consumers' desire to change their mind about treatment during crises). However, psychiatrists were more likely to report clinical barriers to implementation than both psychologists and social workers. In multivariable analyses, legal defensiveness, employment in public sector mental health services, and a belief that treatment refusals will outweigh the benefits of PADs were associated with more perceived barriers, whereas age and endorsing positive perceptions of PADs were associated with fewer perceived barriers. CONCLUSION: Psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers tend to perceive significant potential barriers to PADs, related to operational aspects of these professionals' work environment as well as certain clinical features of PADs for persons with severe mental illness. Additionally, legal defensiveness and general endorsement of PADs appear to shape perceptions of barriers to the effective implementation of PADs.