A Survey of Stakeholder Knowledge, Experience, and Opinions of Advance Directives for Mental Health in Virginia

Opportunities and challenges of self-binding directives: A comparison of empirical research with stakeholders in three European countries

BACKGROUND

Self-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include a clause in which mental health service users consent in advance to involuntary hospital admission and treatment under specified conditions. Medical ethicists and legal scholars identified various potential benefits of SBDs but have also raised ethical concerns. Until recently, little was known about the views of stakeholders on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs.

AIMS

This article aims to foster an international exchange on SBDs by comparing recent empirical findings on stakeholders' views on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

METHOD

Comparisons between the empirical findings were drawn using a structured expert consensus process.

RESULTS

Findings converged on many points. Perceived opportunities of SBDs include promotion of autonomy, avoidance of personally defined harms, early intervention, reduction of admission duration, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, involvement of persons of trust, avoidance of involuntary hospital admission, addressing trauma, destigmatization of involuntary treatment, increase of professionals' confidence, and relief for proxy decision-makers. Perceived challenges include lack of awareness and knowledge, lack of support, undue influence, inaccessibility during crisis, lack of cross-agency coordination, problems of interpretation, difficulties in capacity assessment, restricted therapeutic flexibility, scarce resources, disappointment due to noncompliance, and outdated content. Stakeholders tended to focus on practical challenges and did not often raise fundamental ethical concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Stakeholders tend to see the implementation of SBDs as ethically desirable, provided that the associated challenges are addressed.

The Content of Psychiatric Advance Directives: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) enable users of mental health services to express their treatment preferences for future mental health crises. PAD completion rates remain low despite high rates of interest among service users and empirically confirmed benefits of their use. A systematic review of service users' preferences regarding the content of PADs could be a valuable resource for clinicians and policy makers and might help reduce barriers to PAD implementation.

METHODS

A systematic review concordant with PRISMA guidelines was conducted. CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases were searched up to July 2, 2021. Included articles contained original empirical data on service users' preferences regarding the content of PADs or a document analysis of existing PADs. Studies were analyzed thematically, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies.

RESULTS

The search yielded 4,047 articles, 42 of which were eligible for inclusion. Six themes emerged (most of which included subthemes): signs of crisis, general treatment approach, preferences regarding the treatment setting, treatment preferences, coercion, and social instructions.

CONCLUSIONS

The concern that PADs may be unclear or incompatible with practice standards was not confirmed. Service users generally included clear, comprehensible, and clinically relevant information in their PADs, often providing underlying reasons for their preferences. These reasons were related to previous adverse effects of medication and personal experiences with hospital admissions.

What do we know about the experience of seclusion in a forensic setting? An integrative literature review

Seclusion is used in forensic and general mental health settings to protect a person or others from harm. However, seclusion can result in trauma-related harm and re-traumatization with little known about the experience of seclusion for consumers in forensic mental health settings from their perspectives. This article explores consumer experiences of seclusion in forensic mental health settings and explores the differences between female and male experiences of seclusion. Five electronic databases were systematically searched using keywords and variations of experience, attitude, seclusion, coercion, forensic mental health, and forensic psychiatry. Inclusion criteria were original peer-reviewed studies conducted in adult forensic mental health settings reporting data on the experiences of or attitudes towards seclusion. Seven studies met the criteria for inclusion and a quality assessment was undertaken. Results found consumers in forensic mental health settings perceive seclusion to be harmful, a punishment for their behaviour, and largely a negative experience that impacts their emotional health. Some consumers report positive experiences of seclusion. Differences in the experience of seclusion for females and males are unclear. Further research is required to understand the experience of seclusion for women in forensic mental health settings. Identification and consideration of differences in the experience of seclusion for males and females may assist in identifying sex-specific interventions and may inform policy and practices to eliminate or reduce the trauma associated with seclusion use.

Mental Health Service Users' Perspectives on Psychiatric Advance Directives: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are documents that allow users of mental health services to express their preferences for treatment in future mental health crises. To increase the use of PADs in psychiatric practice, it is helpful to consider how service users view PADs and the factors that facilitate or hinder PAD creation and implementation. A systematic review of the empirical literature on this topic may help inform evidence-based policy making.

METHODS

A systematic review concordant with PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Relevant electronic databases were searched up to July 2, 2021. Articles containing original empirical data on service users' perspectives on PADs were included. Data were analyzed thematically, tabulated, and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Fifty-three articles were identified and included. The following categories were identified: general preferences regarding factors such as legal force and revocability; benefits of PADs at the personal, treatment-related, and social levels; challenges and barriers concerning PAD creation and application; and possible and experienced facilitators of PAD creation.

CONCLUSIONS

Users of mental health services are highly interested in PADs and regard them as tools to improve their involvement in care. They generally prefer legally binding PADs that can be revoked only when users are competent to consent. Barriers reported by service users were mainly related to the creation and application of PADs, and support in PAD creation was the most important facilitator identified. The involvement of mental health professionals in creating PADs appears essential to realize the benefits of PADs and to reduce barriers to their use.

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

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.

Implementing Psychiatric Advance Directives: The Transmitter and Receiver Problem and the Neglected Right to Be Deemed Incapable

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) can help adults with serious mental illnesses preserve their autonomy and avoid involuntary interventions during an incapacitating mental health crisis. A PAD is a legal document prepared while mentally competent and states the person's treatment preferences to be implemented during a future crisis, ideally with the advocacy of an authorized proxy decision maker. PADs have been available in the United States for more than three decades but have yet to be robustly implemented in practice. This Open Forum describes PADs metaphorically as a device for remote communication among the person with mental illness, a proxy decision maker, and health care providers. Barriers to PAD usage occur on both "transmitter" and "receiver" sides and must be addressed to advance PAD implementation.

Stakeholder perspective on barrier to the implementation of Advance Care Planning in a traditionally paternalistic healthcare system

Background

Advance psychiatric agreements could guide medical teams in providing care consistent with the incapacitated service user’s wishes. However, these types of agreements are rarely completed in Asian settings. What challenges can a traditionally paternalistic healthcare system expect to encounter when attempting to implement psychiatric advance directives?

Methods

We answered this research question by exploring the cultural, administrative and logistical challenges that might impede the implementation of the system supporting the service. We interviewed key stakeholders, 28 service users and 22 service providers, to seek their views and interests in the implementation of directives. We structured our analyses along a literature-review-based framework designed to guide further implementation studies, proposed by Nicaise and colleagues (2013). Accordingly, we divided our inductively generated themes into four longitudinal categories: pre-development stage, development stage, implementation stage, post-implementation stage.

Results

Overall, the findings indicated that many service users and service providers are interested in advance care planning. They believed that foreseeable challenges could be overcome with appropriate measures. However, the multiple challenges of implementation led some service providers to be ambivalent about their implementation and led service users to dismiss them. Specifically, factors related to the local culture in Singapore necessitated adjustments to the content and structure of the directives. These include language barriers in a multicultural society, conflicting wishes in a collectivist society, taboos for speaking about undesirable outcomes in a traditionalist society, and time limitations in a fast-paced society.

Conclusion

While culture-specific changes may be required to enable service users in a small Asian country to employ existing advance psychiatric agreement approaches, service providers and service users see their benefits. However, service providers must be mindful not to assume that service users are willing to defer every decision to their physician.

Advance Statements within the Victorian Mental Health Setting: A Contextual and Legislative Global Comparison

This article provides context to the establishment of advance statements within the Australian mental health setting, in the state of Victoria. A movement to legislate for a more humane and liberal approach to mental health consumer care resulted in changes to the Victorian Mental Health Act (2014a). This Act mirrored legislative changes across the western world and resulted in a socially progressive movement embracing recovery focussed care and consumer clinician partnerships. Thus, we purport that an identified need for a more liberal way to work with individuals who have a diagnosis of mental ill health was a major aim of this law reform. The advance statement model is seen as a tool in addressing a growing recognition of how mental health providers engage consumers of mental health services, and value their preferences to care received. This article arises from a larger study which has aimed to explore the role and scope of advance statements. This research has sought to demonstrate how advanced statements can be used within mental health services by providing recommendations for the mental health nursing workforce in relation to the implementation and deliverables for training.

Impact of psychiatric advance directive facilitation on mental health consumers: empowerment, treatment attitudes and the role of peer support specialists

BACKGROUND

A psychiatric advance directive (PAD) is designed to prevent involuntary mental health interventions by enabling people with serious mental illnesses to plan ahead for their own treatment during a future incapacitating crisis. This study implemented PAD facilitation in assertive community treatment (ACT) teams.

AIMS

We examined ACT clients' attitudes toward PAD facilitators, satisfaction with PAD facilitation, the short-term impact of PAD completion on subjective sense of empowerment and attitudes toward treatment, and whether the type of PAD facilitator made a difference.

METHODS

Participants were randomly assigned to be offered PAD facilitation by a peer support specialist or non-peer ACT team clinician, and interviewed at baseline (n = 145) and post-facilitation 1-2-month follow-up (n = 116), to assess perceived consumer-directedness of PAD facilitation, empowerment and various treatment attitudes. Mean scores before and after the intervention were compared for PAD-completers, non-completers, and those who completed a PAD with a peer vs. non-peer. The effect of PAD completion was assessed using logistic and linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

There was no evidence of bias against peer-facilitators. There was a modest positive impact of PAD facilitation on treatment attitudes and empowerment.

CONCLUSIONS

PAD facilitation by peer support specialists and others working in community mental health settings supports recovery.

Advance statements in adult mental healthcare: an update

In this article we re-examine the conclusions of our article on advance statements in adult mental healthcare that was published in 2010 in the light of new literature published in the intervening decade. We explore the results of studies on the implementation and effectiveness of advance statements in adult mental health services, and then summarise recommendations for legislative changes from the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983 that are relevant for England and Wales.

Psychiatric Advance Directives Under the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities: Why Advance Instructions Should Be Able to Override Current Preferences

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are documents by means of which mental health service users can make known their preferences regarding treatment in a future mental health crisis. Many states with explicit legal provisions for PADs have ratified the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). While important UN bodies consider PADs a useful tool to promote the autonomy of service users, we show that an authoritative interpretation of the CRPD by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has the adverse consequence of rendering PADs ineffective in situations where they could be of most use to service users. Based on two clinical vignettes, we demonstrate that reasonable clinical recommendations can be derived from a more realistic and flexible CRPD model. Concerns remain about the accountability of support persons who give effect to PADs. A model that combines supported decision making with competence assessment is able to address these concerns.

Psychiatrists' views on different types of advance statements in mental health care in Germany

BACKGROUND

Advance directives enable patients to ensure that treatment decisions will be based on their autonomous will, even if they are incompetent at the time at which the treatment decision is taken. Although psychiatric advance directives are legally binding in Germany and their benefits are widely acknowledged, they are still infrequently used in German psychiatric practice.

AIMS

The aim of this study is to assess psychiatrists' attitudes toward the use of advance statements in mental health care.

METHODS

A postal survey of psychiatrists in Germany was carried out to examine their views on advance statements in psychiatry. The survey addressed psychiatrists' experiences of and attitudes toward different types of advance statements, including psychiatric advance statements written by patients without any specific assistance, and joint crisis plans ( 'Behandlungsvereinbarungen'), where involvement of the clinical team is required. A total of 396 responded.

RESULTS

Results suggest that generally speaking, respondents held favorable views on joint crisis plans for mental health care. In all, 80.7% of participants agreed that more frequent use of joint crisis plans in clinical practice would be desirable. However, clinicians' attitudes differ largely depending on the type of advance statement. Implications for the use of advance statements in psychiatry are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that increasing the support structures available to train physicians and inform patients could lead to increased adoption of advance statements.

Service user and clinical perspectives of psychiatric advance directives in New Zealand

Advance care planning is becoming an increasingly important feature of health service provision. Although the New Zealand Mental Health Commission has advocated strongly for the provision of advance directives in mental health services, little is known about clinician or service user views on advance directives. The aim of the study was to survey the perspectives of service users and clinicians on the use of psychiatric advance directives. The study used an anonymous online survey to collect data from 110 mental health service users and 175 clinicians. Survey items included existing knowledge, preferred content and potential benefits of advance directives. Descriptive statistics and intergroup comparisons were conducted. Over 90% of service users and clinicians agreed that they support advance directives in mental health. There were similarities in the preferred content of an advance directive across the two groups, particularly regarding the notification of support persons, cultural support and preferred methods of de-escalation. Significant differences in opinion were found regarding the use of coercive measures and the ability of mental health legislation to override advance directives. The results indicate strong support for the use of advance directives within New Zealand mental health services, as well as for further research in the area.

Unpacking the psychiatric advance directive in low-resource settings: an exploratory qualitative study in Tamil Nadu, India

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric advance directives, a tool to document preferences for care in advance of decisional incapacity, have been shown to benefit persons with mental illness in a number of countries through improving medication adherence, reducing symptoms from escalating in a crisis, accelerating recovery, and enhancing service user autonomy. While concepts such as autonomy are important in a number of high-income country settings, it remains unclear whether tools like psychiatric advance directives are suitable in a different context. The recent introduction of the psychiatric advance directive into draft legislation in India prompts the question as to how feasible psychiatric advance directives are in the Indian context. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility and utility of PADs in India, with a focus on the need for individual control over decision making and barriers to implementation, by exploring views of its central stakeholders, service users and carers.

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 51) with clients (n = 39) and carers (n = 12) seeking mental health treatment at outpatient clinics in urban and rural settings provided by a non-profit organisation in Tamil Nadu, India.

RESULTS

Clients engaged in a number of forms of decision-making (passive, active, and collaborative) depending on the situation and decision at hand, and had high levels of self-efficacy. Most clients and carers were unfamiliar with PADs, and while some clients felt it is important to have a say in treatment wishes, carers expressed concerns about service user capacity to make decisions. After completing PADs, clients reported an increase in self-efficacy and an increased desire to make decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of psychiatric advance directives in India appears to be associated with positive outcomes for some service users, however, there is a need to better understand how this tool can be adapted to better suit the care context in India and hold meaning and value for service users to complete.