A mixed methods study examining perceptions by service-users of their involuntary admission in relation to levels of insight

Background: Poor insight is associated with negative attitudes to involuntary admission and care in qualitative studies. Aims: The current paper aims to examine and compare retrospective qualitative perceptions of service-users in relation to their involuntary admission with their levels of clinical insight, using a mixed methods approach. Methods: Forty two participants were assessed 3 months after the revocation of their involuntary admission. Each provided qualitative data relating to their perceptions of the coercive care process, which was analysed using content analysis, along with a quantitative measurement of insight, the Schedule for the Assessment of Insight-Expanded (SAI-E). Employing a mixed methods design and incorporating NVivo matrix coding queries, the datasets were merged to enable qualitative themes to be identified against the quantitative data. Results: Differences were observed between those with high and low insight in terms of their understanding of the need for treatment, their levels of arousal at the time of admission and how they perceived the compassion of health professionals. Certain negative perceptions of care appeared more universal and were common across those with high and low insight. Conclusion: Some negative perceptions of coercive practices appear linked to inherent elements of psychotic illness such as unawareness of illness. Individuals with higher levels of insight tended to perceive their involuntary admission and receiving a diagnosis as beneficial. Negative views that persist amongst service users with high insight levels can highlight areas for successful service improvement, including increased emphasis on non-pharmacotherapy based supports during the coercive care process.

Between No Help and Coercion: Toward Referral to Involuntary Psychiatric Admission. A Qualitative Interview Study of Stakeholders' Perspectives

Objective: Paths toward referral to involuntary psychiatric admission mainly unfold in the contexts where people live their everyday lives. Modern health services are organized such that primary health care services are often those who provide long-term follow-up for people with severe mental illness and who serve as gatekeepers to involuntary admissions at the secondary care level. However, most efforts to reduce involuntary admissions have been directed toward the secondary health care level; interventions at the primary care level are sparse. To adapt effective measures for this care level, a better understanding is needed of the contextual characteristics surrounding individuals' paths ending in referrals for involuntary admission. This study aims to explore what characterizes such paths, based on the personal experiences of multiple stakeholders.Method: One hundred and three participants from five Norwegian municipalities participated in individual interviews or focus groups. They included professionals from the primary and secondary care levels and people with lived experience of severe mental illness and/or involuntary admission and carers. Data was subject to constant comparison in inductive analysis inspired by grounded theory.Results: Four main categories emerged from the analysis: deterioration and deprivation, difficult to get help, insufficient adaptation of services provided, and when things get acute. Combined, these illustrate typical characteristics of paths toward referral for involuntary psychiatric admission.Conclusion: The results demonstrate the complexity of individuals' paths toward referral to involuntary psychiatric admission and underline the importance of comprehensive and individualized approaches to reduce involuntary admissions. Furthermore, the findings indicate a gap in current practice between the policies to reduce involuntary admissions and the provision of, access to, and adaptation of less restrictive services for adults with severe mental illness at risk of involuntary admissions. To address this gap, further research is needed on effective measures and interventions at the primary care level.

Sociodemographic, Circumstantial, and Psychopathological Predictors of Involuntary Admission of Patients with Acute Psychosis

Studies have consistently determined that patients with acute psychosis are more likely to be involuntarily admitted, although few studies examine specific risk factors of involuntary admission (IA) among this patient group. Data from all patients presenting in the psychiatric emergency department (PED) over a period of one year were extracted. Acute psychosis was identified using specific diagnostic criteria. Predictors of IA were determined using logistic regression analysis. Out of 2533 emergency consultations, 597 patients presented with symptoms of acute psychosis, of whom 118 were involuntarily admitted (19.8%). Involuntarily admitted patients were more likely to arrive via police escort (odds ratio (OR) 10.94) or ambulance (OR 2.95), live in a psychiatric residency/nursing home (OR 2.76), report non-adherence to medication (OR 2.39), and were less likely to suffer from (comorbid) substance abuse (OR 0.53). Use of mechanical restraint was significantly associated with IA (OR 13.31). Among psychopathological aspects, aggressiveness was related to the highest risk of IA (OR 6.18), followed by suicidal intent (OR 5.54), disorientation (OR 4.66), tangential thinking (OR 3.95), and suspiciousness (OR 2.80). Patients stating fears were less likely to be involuntarily admitted (OR 0.25). By understanding the surrounding influencing factors, patient care can be improved with the aim of reducing the use of coercion.

Odgovornost za institucionalno pridržane osebe po Zakonu o duševnem zdravju

When state (i.e. court) decides on involuntary admission or placement of persons with a mental disorder in institutional care (either in a ward under the special supervision of a psychiatric hospital or in a secure ward of a social care institution, after the hospital treatment finishes), it pursues in particular the protective objective (i.e. protection from endangering the life or health of the person concerned or the life and health of others). However, with the admission of these persons into institutional care comes the duty and responsibility of the state (and its institutions) to provide to the detained persons an appropriate therapeutic treatment, i.e. an appropriate therapeutic environment that will allow these persons to improve their health to such an extent that they will be able to live independently in their social environment.

England's rate of involuntary psychiatric admission is double that of the Republic of Ireland: Why? A consideration of some possible causes

Involuntary psychiatric admission or ‘sectioning’ is a serious event with clear implications for the right to liberty, among other rights. Rates of involuntary admission vary considerably across jurisdictions. The rate of involuntary admission in England is approximately double that in the Republic of Ireland. Why? This paper examines potential explanations for this difference, including the prevalence of mental disorder in the two jurisdictions, factors relating to mental health legislation, differing levels of police involvement in care-pathways, funding and resources, and attitudes to risk among the public and professionals. Overall, it appears that the relatively high rate of involuntary admission in England might be attributable to the role of perceived risk in shaping mental health law in England but not Ireland, the broader definition of ‘mental disorder’ in the Mental Health Act, 1983 in England, broader legal criteria for involuntary admission in the 1983 Act, differences in the operational definitions of ‘voluntary patient’ between the two jurisdictions and, possibly, increased involvement of police in pathways to care in England and differences in relation to different ethnic groups. The relatively higher number of inpatient beds in England could be a cause or a consequence of higher rates of involuntary admission. Future research could usefully focus on other factors that are also likely relevant: issues relating to social care, substance misuse, availability of alternative treatment options in the community and various other factors that are, as yet, unknown. The potential impact of risk aversion among mental health professionals and others merits particular attention.

Risk assessment and its influencing factors of involuntary admission in patients with mental disorders in Shanghai, China

Background: The ‘risk criterion’ for involuntary admission (IA) has been adopted by Mental Health Law of the People’s Republic of China since 2013. How the new legal regulation influences daily practices in psychiatric institutes are still unclear. Aims: The present study sought to explore the application of risk criterion in IA cases; especially risk assessed by psychiatrists at admission and its influencing factors. Method: Socio-demographic and clinical data including risk assessment for admission of 3,529 involuntary admitted patients from two typical hospitals in Shanghai from 2013 to 2014 were consecutively collected. Personal information of psychiatrists who made admission assessment was collected separately. Results: Among the 3,529 cases, 1,890 (53.6%) were admitted because of actual harmful behaviors to self or others, while 1,639 (46.4%) were admitted with some kinds of risk, but 265 (7.5%) were admitted without any records on risk assessment checklists. Patients who were unemployed, of younger age, single status, diagnosed with schizophrenia were more likely to be admitted without any records on the checklist. Male gender, older age, and lower professional title are influencing factors that psychiatrists made no risk assessment records. Conclusions: The vast majority (92.5%) of risk assessment in IA patients were qualified in our study. In order to protect the legal rights of patients better, operational and reasonable procedures of risk assessment should be developed, such include more detailed rules to IA, systematic training of psychiatrists on IA assessment, mechanism improving doctor-patient relationship, and alternative mental health services for patients and so on.

Global mental health should engage with the ethics of involuntary admission

Global mental health, as a field, has focused on both increasing access to mental health services and promoting human rights. Amidst many successes in engaging with and addressing various human rights violations affecting individuals living with psychosocial disabilities, one human rights challenge remains under-discussed: involuntary inpatient admission for psychiatric care. Global mental health ought to engage proactively with the debate on the ethics of involuntary admission and work to develop a clear position, for three reasons. Firstly, the field promotes models of mental healthcare that are likely to include involuntary admission. Secondly, the field aligns much of its human rights framework with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which opposes the discriminatory use of involuntary admission on the basis of psychosocial disability or impairment. Finally, global mental health, as a field, is uniquely positioned to offer novel contributions to this long-standing debate in clinical ethics by collecting data and conducting analyses across settings. Global mental health should take up involuntary admission as a priority area of engagement, applying its own orientation toward research and advocacy in order to explore the dimensions of when, if ever, involuntary admission may be permissible. Such work stands to offer meaningful contributions to the challenge of involuntary admission.

EPP0630: Trends in Involuntary Admissions for Observation in Malta

Introduction Schedule II of the 2013 Mental Health Act is part of the legal framework for involuntary admission to a licensed mental healthcare facility in Malta (Mount Carmel Hospital) for observation. Objectives To identify trends in presenting features cited by registered specialists in psychiatry in Schedule II applications as well as impact of time of day on involuntary admission. Methods Schedule II forms relating to all involuntary admissions to Mount Carmel Hospital between 01 June 2018 and 01 June 2019 were retrieved from paper files (n=364). Details relating to reason for using this legal framework were recorded and processed through custom linguistic analysis. Timings of application were also assessed. Data Protection permissions to retrospectively access patient files were obtained. All data collected was de-identified at source. Results The commonest reason for use of Schedule II was psychosis (n=139). Substance abuse was recorded in 68 cases, with alcohol and cannabinoids the commonest substances cited. 155 instances relate to situations of increased risk, the commonest being aggressive behaviour (n=74). 61 cases recorded suicidal intent. Peak use of this schedule occurs between 17:00 and 18:00, which is outside normal working hours. Conclusions Predominance of psychosis as a reason for involuntary admission concurs with trends reported internationally, including recent German, Irish and Dutch reports, as does increased use of involuntary admission with out-of-hours presentations. Practices relating to involuntary admission to a mental healthcare facility in Malta appear to reflect general trends in other European cohorts, despite differing legal frameworks.

Factors associated with involuntary admissions: a register-based cross-sectional multicenter study

Background Despite the EU recommendations on mental health, involuntary admission has been under researched in Italy for a long time and the overall picture of involuntary admission still appears fragmentary. The aims of this study are to evaluate involuntary admission rates in the Piedmont Region (Italy) and to investigate clinical and service-related variables associated with involuntary admission. Methods This is a cross-sectional retrospective multicenter study involving all psychiatric inpatients units of the general hospitals of Piedmont Region. Data on hospitalizations during 2016 were collected by consulting hospital discharge registers. The analyses were performed on two samples: 6018 patients (data analysis was run on first hospitalization during the study period for those with multiple admissions) and 7881 inpatient episodes. The association between involuntary admission and socio-demographic and clinical characteristics was examined through t-test for continuous variables, and Pearson’s Chi-square test for categorical variables. Multilevel modeling was applied in logistic regression models with two levels: for the first model center and participants and for the second model center and inpatient episodes. Results Of 6018 inpatients, 10.1% were admitted involuntarily at first hospitalization, while the overall compulsory treatment rate was slightly lower (9.1%) in the inpatient episodes sample (n = 7881). The involuntary admission rates ranged from 0.8 to 21% among study centers. Involuntary admissions were primarily associated with younger age, diagnosis of schizophrenia or substance use disorders, longer duration of hospital stay, mechanical restraint episodes, and fewer subsequent hospitalizations during the study period. Conclusions The rate of involuntary admission in the Piedmont Region was lower than the mean rate across countries worldwide. There were noteworthy differences in rates of involuntary admission among psychiatric units, although no relationship was found with characteristics of the psychiatric wards or of the areas where hospitals are located.