Dutch Mental Health Patients’ and Significant Others’ Perspectives on Compulsory Treatment at Home: One Size Does Not Fit All

On January 1, 2020, the Compulsory Mental Health Care Act took effect in the Netherlands. It contains provisions for compulsory community treatment (CCT) and compulsory treatment at home (CTH). In this study, we collected the opinions of patients and their significant others on CTH and on their preferences regarding compulsory care in their homes. Patients and their significant others were involved in the experience-based co-design of a purpose-built online questionnaire. This questionnaire was completed by 624 patients and 531 significant others. Sixty-one percent of the patients and 62% of the significant others did not want compulsory treatment to take place at home but in hospital or elsewhere. Patients’ and significant others’ opinion showed few differences, except with regard to the involvement of the significant others in CTH. As the respective views of patients and significant others were mixed, we recommend that crisis plans and compulsory treatment plans should be individually tailored to the needs and wishes of patients and their significant others regarding CTH.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors and outcomes of community treatment orders in Australia and New Zealand

Objectives: Australia and New Zealand have some of the highest rates of compulsory community treatment order use worldwide. There are also concerns that people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds may have higher rates of community treatment orders. We therefore assessed the health service, clinical and psychosocial outcomes of compulsory community treatment and explored if culturally and linguistically diverse, indigenous status or other factors predicted community treatment orders. Methods: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2020: PubMed/Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We included any study conducted in Australia or New Zealand that compared people on community treatment orders for severe mental illness with controls receiving voluntary psychiatric treatment. Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessing study quality using Joanna Briggs Institute scales. Results: A total of 31 publications from 12 studies met inclusion criteria, of which 24 publications could be included in a meta-analysis. Only one was from New Zealand. People who were male, single and not engaged in work, study or home duties were significantly more likely to be subject to a community treatment order. In addition, those from a culturally and linguistically diverse or migrant background were nearly 40% more likely to be on an order. Indigenous status was not associated with community treatment order use in Australia and there were no New Zealand data. Community treatment orders did not reduce readmission rates or bed-days at 12-month follow-up. There was evidence of increased benefit in the longer-term but only after a minimum of 2 years of use. Finally, people on community treatment orders had a lower mortality rate, possibly related to increased community contacts. Conclusion: People from culturally and linguistically diverse or migrant backgrounds are more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. However, the evidence for effectiveness remains inconclusive and limited to orders of at least 2 years’ duration. The restrictive nature of community treatment orders may not be outweighed by the inconclusive evidence for beneficial outcomes.

Community Treatment Order Outcomes in Quebec: A Unique Jurisdiction

Objective: We study compulsory community treatment orders (CTOs) for patients with severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI). Focusing on a unique jurisdiction in Canada that allows for long duration CTOs with strict enforcement procedures, our objectives are to determine whether extended duration CTOs are effective and to determine whether associated hospitalization costs are reduced. Method: A mirror image, naturalistic design was employed using patients as their own controls to enhance external validity. No inclusive or exclusive criteria were employed for the 367 SPMI clinic patients who were studied over a 5-year period. Detailed documentation of the dates of all CTOs, long-acting antipsychotic injections (LAIs), emergency visits, hospitalizations, duration of hospitalizations, crimes and/or police involvement were collected. To study the relation between CTO and injection adherence, we use a mixed-effect linear regression model. To study the effect of injection adherence and hospitalization, we use survival analysis via Kaplan–Meier and Cox survival models. Results: CTO and non-CTO patients did not differ with respect to demographics, but CTO patients were significantly more severely ill. Following a CTO, adherence to LAIs increased over time ( P < 0.001). The average time the patients spent in the community, that is, outside the hospital, was significantly longer under a CTO, and the duration of hospitalizations was decreased. Conclusions: LAI adherence and outpatient office visits were enhanced by extended duration CTOs, as was time out of the hospital. The shorter duration of hospital stays implies cost savings. These must be weighed against their undesirable coercive nature.

Efficacy of compulsory community treatment and use in minority ethnic populations: A statewide cohort study

Background: There is conflicting and equivocal evidence for the efficacy of compulsory community treatment within Australia and overseas, but no study from Queensland. In addition, although people from Indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are over-represented in compulsory admissions to hospital, little is known about whether this also applies to compulsory community treatment. Aims: We initially investigated whether people from Indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in terms of country of birth, or preferred language, were more likely to be on compulsory community treatment using statewide databases from Queensland. We then assessed the impact of compulsory community treatment on health service use over the following 12 months. Compulsory community treatment included both community treatment orders and forensic orders. Methods: Cases and controls from administrative health data were matched on age, sex, diagnosis and time of hospital discharge (the index date). Multivariate analyses were used to examine potential predictors of compulsory community treatment, as well as impact on bed-days, time to readmission or contacts with public mental health services in the subsequent year. Results: We identified 7432 cases and controls from January 2013 to February 2017 (total n = 14,864). Compulsory community treatment was more likely in Indigenous Queenslanders (adjusted odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval = [1.28, 1.65]) subjects coming from a culturally and linguistically diverse background (adjusted odds ratio = 1.54; 95% confidence interval = [1.37, 1.72]), or those who had a preferred language other than English (adjusted odds ratio = 1.66; 95% confidence interval = [1.30, 2.11]). While community contacts were significantly greater in patients on compulsory community treatment, there was no difference in bed-days while time to readmission was shorter. Restricting the analyses to just community treatment orders did not alter these results. Conclusion: In common with other coercive treatments, Indigenous Australians and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are more likely to be placed on compulsory community treatment. The evidence for effectiveness remains inconclusive.