“Caring for a Crisis”: Care and Control in Community Mental Health

In the debate on coercion in psychiatry, care and control are often juxtaposed. In this article we argue that this dichotomy is not useful to describe the more complex ways service users, care professionals and the specific care setting interrelate in a community mental health team (CMHT). Using the ethnographic approach of empirical ethics, we contrast the ways in which control and care go together in situations of a psychiatric crisis in two CMHT's: one in Trieste (Italy) and one in Utrecht (the Netherlands). The Dutch and Italian CMHT's are interesting to compare, because they differ with regard to the way community care is organized, the amount of coercive measures, the number of psychiatric beds, and the fact that Trieste applies an open door policy in all care settings. Contrasting the two teams can teach us how in situations of psychiatric crisis control and care interrelate in different choreographies. We use the term choreography as a metaphor to encapsulate the idea of a crisis situation as a set of coordinated actions from different actors in time and space. This provides two choreographies of handling a crisis in different ways. We argue that applying a strict boundary between care and control hinders the use of the relationship between caregiver and patient in care.

Police Encounters, Agitation, Diagnosis, and Employment Predict Psychiatric Hospitalisation of Intensive Home Treatment Patients During a Psychiatric Crisis

Objective: This study aims to determine factors associated with psychiatric hospitalisation of patients treated for an acute psychiatric crisis who had access to intensive home treatment (IHT).Methods: This study was performed using data from a randomised controlled trial. Interviews, digital health records and eight internationally validated questionnaires were used to collect data from patients on the verge of an acute psychiatric crisis enrolled from two mental health organisations. Thirty-eight factors were assigned to seven risk domains. The seven domains are “sociodemographic”, “social engagement”, “diagnosis and psychopathology”, “aggression”, “substance use”, “mental health services” and “quality of life”. Multiple logistic regression analysis (MLRA) was conducted to assess how much pseudo variance in hospitalisation these seven domains explained. Forward MLRA was used to identify individual risk factors associated with hospitalisation. Risks were expressed in terms of relative risk (RR) and absolute risk difference (ARD).Results: Data from 183 participants were used. The mean age of the participants was 40.03 (SD 12.71), 57.4% was female, 78.9% was born in the Netherlands and 51.4% was employed. The range of explained variance for the domains related to “psychopathology and care” was between 0.34 and 0.08. The “aggression” domain explained the highest proportion (R2 = 0.34) of the variance in hospitalisation. “Quality of life” had the lowest explained proportion of variance (R2 = 0.05). The forward MLRA identified four predictive factors for hospitalisation: previous contact with the police or judiciary (OR = 7.55, 95% CI = 1.10–51.63; ARD = 0.24; RR = 1.47), agitation (OR = 2.80, 95% CI = 1.02–7.72; ARD = 0.22; RR = 1.36), schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders (OR = 22.22, 95% CI = 1.74–284.54; ARD = 0.31; RR = 1.50) and employment status (OR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.01–0.63; ARD = −0.28; RR = 0.66).Conclusion: IHT teams should be aware of patients who have histories of encounters with the police/judiciary or were agitated at outset of treatment. As those patients benefit less from IHT due to the higher risk of hospitalisation. Moreover, type of diagnoses and employment status play an important role in predicting hospitalisation.

The effects of intensive home treatment on self-efficacy in patients recovering from a psychiatric crisis

Background This study evaluated whether providing intensive home treatment (IHT) to patients experiencing a psychiatric crisis has more effect on self-efficacy when compared to care as usual (CAU). Self-efficacy is a psychological concept closely related to one of the aims of IHT. Additionally, differential effects on self-efficacy among patients with different mental disorders and associations between self-efficacy and symptomatic recovery or quality of life were examined. Methods Data stem from a Zelen double consent randomised controlled trial (RCT), which assesses the effects of IHT compared to CAU on patients who experienced a psychiatric crisis. Data were collected at baseline, 6 and 26 weeks follow-up. Self-efficacy was measured using the Mental Health Confidence Scale. The 5-dimensional EuroQol instrument and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) were used to measure quality of life and symptomatic recovery, respectively. We used linear mixed modelling to estimate the associations with self-efficacy. Results Data of 142 participants were used. Overall, no difference between IHT and CAU was found with respect to self-efficacy (B = − 0.08, SE = 0.15, p = 0.57), and self-efficacy did not change over the period of 26 weeks (B = − 0.01, SE = 0.12, t (103.95) = − 0.06, p = 0.95). However, differential effects on self-efficacy over time were found for patients with different mental disorders (F(8, 219.33) = 3.75, p < 0.001). Additionally, self-efficacy was strongly associated with symptomatic recovery (total BPRS B = − 0.10, SE = 0.02, p < 0.00) and quality of life (B = 0.14, SE = 0.01, p < 0.001). Conclusions Although self-efficacy was associated with symptomatic recovery and quality of life, IHT does not have a supplementary effect on self-efficacy when compared to CAU. This result raises the question whether, and how, crisis care could be adapted to enhance self-efficacy, keeping in mind the development of self-efficacy in depressive, bipolar, personality, and schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders. The findings should be considered with some caution. This study lacked sufficient power to test small changes in self-efficacy and some mental disorders had a small sample size. Trial registration This trial is registered at Trialregister.nl, number NL6020.

Foucault and the birth of psychopolitics: Towards a genealogy of crisis governance

The article contributes to the genealogy of current tendencies in crisis governance by reconstructing Michel Foucault’s analysis of the application of the notion of crisis in 19th-century psychiatry. This analysis complements and corrects Reinhart Koselleck’s history that viewed crisis as originally a medical, judicial or theological concept that was transferred to the political domain in the 18th century. In contrast, Foucault highlights how the psychiatric application of the concept of crisis was itself political, conditioned by the disciplinary power of the psychiatrist. Unlike the ancient medical concept of crisis that emphasized the doctor’s judgement in observing the event of truth in the course of the disease, psychiatric crisis is explicitly forced by the doctor in order to elicit the desired symptoms in the patient and convert their power of disciplinary confinement into medical diagnosis. The article argues that this notion of crisis resonates with the tendencies observed in contemporary crisis governance in Western societies. While these tendencies are often addressed in terms of ‘psychopolitics’ that presumably succeeds Foucault’s ‘biopolitics’, we suggest that Foucault’s own work on psychiatric power offers a valuable genealogical perspective on the contemporary governance of crises.