Interest in psychiatric advance directives among high users of crisis services and hospitalization

Crisis plans in mental health: A scoping review

Crisis situations are frequent among people with mental health disorders. Several interventions have been developed to act in prevention, including crisis plans recognized as particularly effective in reducing coercive measures. In the literature, several models of crisis plans are proposed with similar aims and contents. Based on the methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute, a scoping review was conducted to map the state of knowledge on crisis plans in adult mental health settings. The literature search conducted on six databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Cochrane) yielded 2435 articles. Of these, 122 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 78 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were critically appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools, and data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Content analysis identified a typology of crisis plans: (1) the legal crisis plan and (2) the formal crisis plan. Five modalities were identified for its completion: the sections, the moment, the completion steps, the people involved and the training of key actors. Most identified outcomes are consistent with the main purpose of the intervention, which is crisis prevention. However, the most identified outcomes focused on the service user's recovery and indicated that crisis plans could provide an opportunity to operationalize recovery in mental healthcare, thus suggesting an evolution in the aim of the intervention. Future research should further focus on the modalities of crisis plans to guide the implementation in clinical practice.

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.

Advance Decision Making in Bipolar: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

"Advance decision making" (ADM) refers to people planning for a future when they may lose the capacity to make decisions about treatment (decision making capacity for treatment or DMC-T). This can occur in a variety of physical and mental health scenarios. Statutory provision for ADM is likely to be introduced to mental health legislation in England and Wales, which will support planning for mental health crises. Conceptually, it may have particular utility for people with Bipolar Affective Disorder (bipolar) due to the pattern of rapid loss and then recovery of DMC-T during episodes of illness. Furthermore, ADM is recommended by clinical experts in bipolar. However, the empirical evidence base for ADM in bipolar is unclear. Therefore, a systematic review is required to collate available evidence and define future research directions.

METHODS

A PRISMA concordant systematic review of empirical literature on the use of ADM in bipolar.

RESULTS

We found 13 eligible articles which reported on 11 studies. Of the eligible studies 2 used a mixed methods design, 8 were quantitative descriptive studies and 1 was a randomised controlled trial. Outcomes of included studies fell into 4 categories: Interest in ADM, type of ADM preferred, barriers to completing ADM and impact of ADM. The available evidence suggests that people with bipolar are interested in engaging with ADM which is supported, collaborative and allows them to state treatment requests and refusals.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence in this area is limited. Clinicians should be aware that service users with bipolar are likely to value their support in creating ADM documents. In addition, it seems that people with bipolar may face fewer barriers and achieve greater success with ADM compared to those with other severe mental illnesses. Given the greater focus and likely demand for ADM following upcoming legal reform, further research is urgently needed to ensure available resources are most effectively targeted to achieve the best outcomes from ADM activities. This research should focus on clarifying: causal assumptions around ADM, the outcomes which are valued by key stakeholders, barriers to achieving these outcomes, stakeholder opinions on supporting 'self-binding' and the development and evaluation of models of ADM which are tailored for fluctuating DMC-T.

The PACT advance decision-making template: preparing for Mental Health Act reforms with co-production, focus groups and consultation

BACKGROUND

Advance decision making (ADM) in mental health is supported by stakeholders but faces significant barriers. These must be overcome, not least to support the UK government's commitment to introduce statutory mental health ADM in England and Wales.

AIMS

To build understanding and address the gap between aspirations for ADM and actuality, with feasible co-produced ADM resources.

METHODS

We used focus groups and consultation to explore experience and views of stakeholders on ADM processes and materials. Discussions included feedback on an ADM template which was adapted accordingly throughout the research process.

RESULTS

Between September 2017 and December 2019, 94 individuals, representing stakeholders advised on design and process of ADM, alongside wider discussion at stakeholder events. Collaborative ADM was universally supported. Valued outcomes were diverse and combining aspirations with practicality required resolving dilemmas. A prototype template and guidance, the PACT (Preferences and Advance decisions for Crisis and Treatment) was co-produced, designed to help manage fluctuating mental capacity through collaborative decision making. The PACT enables direct engagement with medico-legal frameworks, with provision to facilitate person-centred assessments, treatment refusals and requests. Resources including supported engagement and cross-agency awareness and accessibility were seen as essential.

CONCLUSION

Our research confirms high stakeholder motivation to engage in ADM is hampered by multiple barriers. We identified enabling conditions for ADM and co-produced an ADM template and guidance which supports achievement of a range of valued outcomes. Further developments to support and evaluate the process of implementation are now needed to prepare for statutory change.

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.

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.

Implementing recovery-oriented interventions with staff in a psychiatric hospital: A mixed-methods study

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Recovery-oriented care is a means of providing mental health treatment, focused on the patient's individual needs and active involvement in one's own care. However, this approach presents with challenges, particularly in psychiatric hospitals, which tend to be focused on symptom reduction. WHAT DOES THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This study examines the influence of three different recovery-oriented training programmes/interventions (namely, illness management and recovery, peer support, and psychiatric advance directives) on the attitudes and practice of mental health staff (including nurses) in an inpatient setting, using a mixed-methods methodology. We quantitatively assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices developed following recovery-oriented training, compared to staff not trained in these interventions. We interviewed staff exposed to the different interventions to learn about their personal views and characterized the benefits and challenges they experienced. Mainly, the illness management and recovery training created a positive change in the work attitude and some work-related practices of mental health staff and the increased presence of a person-centred approach supporting patient autonomy. However, and contrary to expectations, there was no increase in practices that support personal goals or provide individually tailored services. Peer support had an experiential impact among mental health staff, initiating a more humane, positive approach to patients. Psychiatric advance directives were reported as more challenging to implement and with limited impact. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Recovery-oriented trainings can be internalized and implemented by staff in medical model psychiatric settings. Despite recovery-oriented training, challenges do occur-notably, they are hardest to implement in acute wards/patient states and by psychiatric nurses. Using multiple recovery-oriented programmes/interventions can accelerate the momentum for change in traditional settings and promote positive practice. Ongoing comprehensive mental health staff training on recovery-oriented care programmes is essential in order to sustain change over time. Training is not enough in itself-hospital administrations need to be actively involved in promoting recovery-oriented policies. ABSTRACT: Introduction Developing person-centred recovery-oriented care is a challenge in mental health systems, particularly psychiatric hospitals. Aim To assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices developed following recovery-oriented training of nurses and other staff; to identify the benefits and challenges involved in the implementation of recovery-oriented intervention in psychiatric wards. Method A mixed-methods study compared recovery knowledge, attitudes and practices of 37 mental health ward staff trained in recovery-oriented intervention, against 35 staff not trained. Fifteen staff were interviewed about their experiences, and protocols were qualitatively analysed. Results The quantitative outcomes partially confirmed positive changes in attitudes and some practices. Qualitative interviews complemented these findings, revealing greater use of a person-centred approach and support for patient autonomy. However, we did not find differences between groups in quantitative outcomes pertaining to personal goals or providing individually tailored services. Discussion This study validates the implementation of recovery training and practices in psychiatric settings, and identifies the challenges involved. We discuss psychiatric nurse conflicts in implementation in acute wards. Implications for practice Our findings support the need for broader staff training in recovery-oriented interventions. Recruiting the support of the hospital administration for recovery-oriented intervention programmes is key, both ethically and structurally.

National survey and analysis of barriers to the utilisation of the 2005 mental capacity act by people with bipolar disorder in England and Wales

Background: The Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) provides a legal framework for advance planning for both health and welfare in England and Wales for people if they lose mental capacity, for example, through mania or severe depression.Aims: To determine the proportion of people with bipolar disorder (BD) who utilise advance planning, their experience of using it and barriers to its implementation.Methods: National survey of people with clinical diagnosis of BD of their knowledge, use and experience of the MCA. Thematically analysed qualitative interviews with maximum variance sample of people with BD.Results: A total of 544 respondents with BD participated in the survey; 18 in the qualitative study. 403 (74.1%) believed making plans about their personal welfare if they lost capacity to be very important. A total of 199 (36.6%) participants knew about the MCA. A total 54 (10%), 62 (11%) and 21 (4%) participants made advanced decisions to refuse treatment, advance statements and lasting power of attorney, respectively. Barriers included not understanding its different forms, unrealistic expectations and advance plans ignored by services.Conclusion: In BD, the demand for advance plans about welfare with loss of capacity was high, but utilisation of the MCA was low with barriers at service user, clinician and organisation levels.

Australian Psychiatrists' Support for Psychiatric Advance Directives: Responses to a Hypothetical Vignette

This study examines whether Australian psychiatrists would support requests in a psychiatric advance directive (PAD) and the reasons underlying their decisions in response to a hypothetical vignette. An online survey was completed by 143 psychiatrists. Fewer than 3 out of 10 psychiatrists supported the patient to create a PAD which requested cessation of pharmacotherapy (27%) or remaining out of hospital and not being subject to an involuntary treatment order (24%) should their depression condition deteriorate. A thematic analysis showed that patient autonomy was the strongest theme among those who supported the patient to create a PAD, whereas the clinical profile of and risk to the patient and the professional or ethical imperative of the psychiatrist were strongest among those who were unsure about supporting the patient or who did not support the patient. These findings provide a challenge about how to fulfil obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).

Ethically Relevant Differences in Advance Directives for Psychiatric and End-of-Life Care

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) represent a shift from more coercive to more recovery-oriented care and hold the promise of empowering patients while helping fill the gap in treatment of non-dangerous patients lacking decision-making capacity. Advance directives for end-of-life and psychiatric care share an underlying rationale of extending respect for patient autonomy and preventing the harm of unwanted treatment for patients lacking the decision-making capacity to participate meaningfully in planning their care.

OBJECTIVE

Ethically relevant differences in applying advance directives to end-of-life and psychiatric care are discussed.

DESIGN

These differences fall into three categories: (1) patient factors, including decision-making capacity, ability to communicate, and prior experience; (2) decisional factors, including expected outcome and the nature of the decisions; and (3) historical-legal precedent.

RESULTS

Specific recommendations are offered.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians need to appreciate the ethical implications of these differences to effectively invoke PADs or assist patients in creating PADs.

Psychiatric Advance Directives in India: What will the future hold?

Psychiatric Advance Directives (PADs) have been incorporated into India's Mental Health Care Bill, 2013. This is the first time any form of Advance Directive stands to receive legal sanction in India. PADs have numerous theoretical and empirically tenable therapeutic and financial advantages. Western experiences have shown high acceptance for the concept among psychiatric patients, and illustrated that most stable patients with severe mental illness retain the capacity to frame PADs consistent with community practice standards. However active psychopathology does impair this capacity, and therein, current subjective assessments of competence performed by Physicians without objective instruments are often inaccurate. Though PADs champion patient autonomy, when applied and studied, they have shown little significant advantage-there is currently not enough data to support evidence-based universal recommendations for PADs. PADs as incorporated into the Mental Health Care Bill model on existing Western statutes, and though many of the strengths of earlier systems have been subsumed, so have several of the shortcomings. The risks, benefits and applicability of PADs in India are complicated by the social re-calibration of patient autonomy, mental-healthcare delivery system weaknesses, and the relatively peripheral role the Psychiatrist is mandated to play in the entire advance directive process. Treating patients within the framework of their pre-stated wishes will be a much more intricate and arduous task than most of modern Psychiatric practice in India, but the difficulties, obstacles and inevitable failures encountered will provide evidence of the delivery system's weaknesses and thereby contribute to its strength.

What do service users want? A content analysis of what users may write in psychiatric advance directives in India

Although psychiatric advance directives give service users control over their care, very few studies exist on the content of PADs. This paper aims to contribute to this evidence base by presenting the content of psychiatric advance directives in India. Participants were 75 clients seeking outpatient care at a mental health services organisation in Tamil Nadu, India, who agreed to draft a PAD. Most clients were comfortable with appointing a representative (usually a family member) to make decisions on their behalf during a period of decisional incapacity or relapse, were willing to accept admission to the hospital/clinic and take medication if required, wanted to have a trusted person to discuss their mental health problems. No client used the opportunity to outright refuse treatment. This study highlights an important first step in improving the quality of mental health care by documenting user preferences for care in India. More in-depth research is needed to elicit rich descriptions of experiences of care and user-centred understanding of rights.

Users' and health professionals' values in relation to a psychiatric intervention: the case of psychiatric advance directives

Although clinical and organisational benefits have been expected from Psychiatric Advance Directives (PADs), their take-up rates remain low and their evaluation disappointing. The endorsement of PADs by stakeholders is decisive for their use and understanding stakeholders' preferences for implementation is crucial. A Multinomial Discrete Choice analysis was carried out of options for designing, completing, and honouring PADs, with a view to enhancing user autonomy, therapeutic alliance, care coordination, and feasibility. Although autonomy underlies the whole process, the criteria determining options varied with the stage of the intervention. These criteria should be taken into account in future PAD intervention and evaluation processes.

Psychiatric advance directives, a possible way to overcome coercion and promote empowerment

Psychiatric advance directives (ADs) allow an individual to state their preferences for future treatment at times when they may be unable to make considered decisions. There are differences in their form and legal value and the process associated with their use and completion. Several studies have now been completed to assess the impact of ADs on service use and coercion. Their results give a mixed picture but directives nevertheless have the potential to support the empowerment process, minimize experienced coercion, and improve coping strategies. These may in turn reduce the frequency of in-patient service use. Further studies on the different processes of facilitation involved and on different populations are necessary to improve our knowledge and use of these potentially powerful interventions.

[Advanced directives in psychiatry: A review of the qualitative literature, a state-of-the-art and viewpoints]

BACKGROUND

Advance Directives are written documents, which are used for people to notify their preference for a future situation when they are unable to give their consent. In psychiatry, psychiatric advance directives (PADs) can be used for patients with chronic psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, or a bipolar disorder. PADs give the patient an opportunity to state wishes in advance about his/her treatment when he/she is in an acute state of illness. PADs were initially developed as a way for patients to defend themselves against the power of the psychiatrists, but are likely to become a useful tool in psychiatric care. PADs may contain information about medication, non pharmaceutical devices, and the name of a proxy decision maker. The main objective is to reduce the number of compulsory hospitalisations.

OBJECTIVE

This article is a qualitative review which carries out a state-of-the-art on the use of PADs for people with chronic psychotic disorders and defines suggestions to include this intervention in the French psychiatric context.

METHOD

We used the keywords psychiatric advance directives, crisis card, Ulysse directives, joint crisis plan (JCP) in the MEDLINE database to propose a qualitative review. We selected original clinical studies about the use of PADs for people with psychotic disorders.

RESULTS

We included 36 articles. The qualitative analysis identified seven main themes: different types of PADs, effectiveness of PADs, practical use of PADs, patient's views, clinician's views, economical aspects, and legal aspects. The content of the PADs is consistent with psychiatric standard care in nearly all cases, regarding medical instructions, pre-emergency interventions, non-hospital alternatives and non-medical personal care. Patients use their PADs to describe prodromal symptoms of relapse and to suggest a treatment and a hospitalisation in advance. PADs are not used to refuse all treatments. Patients show a strong interest in creating a directive and a high level of satisfaction when using it. They feel they have more control over their mental health problem and are more respected and valued as a person. Thirty-six to fifty-three percent of clinicians had positive opinions regarding PADs. They valued the increase of the patient's autonomy and the prevention of relapse, but were concerned about difficulties for accessing the documents, and about the lack of training of the medical teams. Clinicians also feared the pressure of relatives or partners on treatment decisions. The qualitative analysis revealed the specific benefit of the JCP, a particular type of PADs negotiated with the medical team, on the reduction of the general number of admissions. We can identify practical problems such as the lack of accessibility to PADs in emergency situations, and the clinician's reluctance to use PADs. The only economical evaluation showed a non-significant decrease in total costs.

DISCUSSION

PADs are used in a few countries, although their benefits in terms of patient's perceptions and compulsory admissions are promising. The JCP proposes a specific clinical approach based on therapeutic alliance. Its creation also involves the clinician, family members and a neutral mediator in a negotiated process. The JCP is likely to be the most efficient PAD model in reducing compulsory admissions. The use of the JCP appears to be relevant in the context of the new French legislation, establishing outpatient commitment orders and could be an effective way to improve the relationships with patients.

Psychiatric Advance Directives as a complex and multistage intervention: a realist systematic review

Psychiatric Advance Directives (PADs) are documents that allow users with severe and chronic mental illnesses to notify their treatment preferences for future crisis relapses and to appoint a surrogate decision-maker for a period of incompetence. Despite many supposed clinical and organisational benefits, their take-up rate has remained very low and their clinical evaluation has given contradictory results for organisational outcomes. Intermediary results are available, however, which rely on different theoretical views about how PADs are supposed to work. We carried out a realist systematic review that considered the PAD as a multistage intervention including the definition of the document, its completion and its access and honouring. We identified the theoretical frameworks underlying this kind of intervention and examined the available evidence that supported or contradicted the expectations at each stage of the intervention. Forty-seven references were retrieved, ranging from 1996 to 2009. Three frameworks underlie a PAD intervention: enhancement of the autonomy of the user, improvement of the therapeutic alliance and integration of care through partnership working. Although designed in the first place with a view to sustaining the user's autonomy, results indicate that the intervention is more efficient within a therapeutic alliance framework. Moreover, much is known about the completion process and the content of the document, but very little about its access and honouring. The mixture of expectations makes the purpose of PADs unclear, for example, crisis relapse prevention or management, advance planning of long-term or emergency care, or reduction in the resort to coercion. This may explain their low take-up rates. Hence, frameworks and purpose have to be clarified. The shape of the whole intervention at each stage relies on such clarification. More research is needed, particularly on the later stages of the intervention, as the evidence for how PADs should be implemented is still incomplete.

Pharmacotherapy challenges in patients with first-episode psychosis

The first episode of a psychotic disorder typically occurs in late adolescence or young adulthood, a critical time of development with respect to personality, social role, education, and vocation. The first few years of psychosis appear to be a critical period during which intervention needs to be initiated before the consequences of psychosis become more severe. Early intervention is therefore crucial in maximizing outcomes. Although response rates to antipsychotic medication in first-episode psychosis (FEP) are good, there is a relatively high risk of relapse. The greatest challenges that physicians face in treating FEP and preventing relapse are engaging patients in treatment and preventing non-adherence to therapy. Overall rates of non-adherence to antipsychotic medications for FEP patients are estimated to be at or higher than 50% within the first year of treatment, suggesting that malleable factors linked to non-adherence need to be targeted in interventions provided. Factors influencing adherence can be categorized into four groups: (1) environment-related, (2) patient-related, (3) medication-related, and (4) illness-related. This paper will review the factors associated with adherence and discuss solutions to optimize engagement, adherence to medication, and treatment in order to prevent relapse. Factors like social and family support, therapeutic alliance, attitudes and beliefs toward illness and medication, insight, substance use disorders, medication efficacy, tolerability, and accessibility will be discussed. Solutions, such as early psychosis specialized services integrating psychosocial therapies and careful selection of appropriate antipsychotic medication, will be proposed.

Patients' preference and experiences of forced medication and seclusion

This study examined patients' preferences for coercive methods and the extent to which patients' choices were determined by previous experience, demographic, clinical and intervention-setting variables. Before discharge from closed psychiatric units, 161 adult patients completed a questionnaire. The association between patients' preferences and the underlying variables was analyzed using logistic regression. We found that patients' preferences were mainly defined by earlier experiences: patients without coercive experiences or who had had experienced seclusion and forced medication, favoured forced medication. Those who had been secluded preferred seclusion in future emergencies, but only if they approved its duration. This suggests that seclusion, if it does not last too long, does not have to be abandoned from psychiatric practices. In an emergency, however, most patients prefer to be medicated. Our findings show that patients' preferences cannot guide the establishment of international uniform methods for managing violent behaviour. Therefore patients' individual choices should be considered.

Covert treatment in psychiatry: do no harm, true, but also dare to care

Covert treatment raises a number of ethical and practical issues in psychiatry. Viewpoints differ from the standpoint of psychiatrists, caregivers, ethicists, lawyers, neighbours, human rights activists and patients. There is little systematic research data on its use but it is quite certain that there is relatively widespread use. The veil of secrecy around the procedure is due to fear of professional censure. Whenever there is a veil of secrecy around anything, which is aided and abetted by vociferous opposition from some sections of society, the result is one of two: 1) either the activity goes underground or 2) it is reluctantly discarded, although most of those who used it earlier knew it was needed. Covert treatment has the dubious distinction of suffering both such secrecy and disapproval.Covert treatment has a number of advantages and disadvantages in psychotic disorders. The advantages are that it helps solve practical clinical problems; prevents delays in starting treatment, which is associated with clinical risks and substantial costs; prevents risk of self-destructive behaviour and/or physical assault by patient; prevents relapse; and prevents demoralization of staff. The disadvantages are that it maybe used with malafide intent by caregivers with or without the complicity of psychiatrists; it may be used to force conformity in dissenters; and the clinician may land himself in legal tangles even with its legitimate use. In addition, it may prevent insight, encourage denial, promote unhealthy practices in the treating staff and prevent understanding of why noncompliance occurs in the first place.Some support its use in dementia and learning disorders but oppose it in schizophrenia. The main reason is that uncooperative patients of schizophrenia (and related psychoses) are considered to be those who refuse treatment but retain capacity; while in dementia and severe learning disorder, uncooperative patients are those who lack capacity. This paper disputes this contention by arguing that although uncooperative patients of schizophrenia (and related psychoses) apparently retain capacity, it is limited, in fact distorted, since they lack insight. It presents the concept of insight-unconsciousness in a patient of psychosis. Just as an unconscious patient has to be given covert medical/surgical treatment, similarly an insight-unconscious patient with one of the different psychoses (in the acute phase or otherwise) may also have to be given covert treatment till he regains at least partial insight. It helps control psychotic symptoms and assists the patient in regaining enough insight to realize he needs treatment. Another argument against covert treatment is that people with schizophrenia have the capacity to learn and therefore can learn that they are required to take medications, but if medications are given covertly it may well fuel their paranoia. However, it should be noted that the patient who has lack of insight cannot learn unless he regains that insight, and he may need covert treatment to facilitate this process. Covert treatment can fuel the paranoia, true, but it can also control the psychotic symptoms sufficiently so that regular treatment can be initiated. In a patient who refuses to accept that he is sick and when involuntary commitment is not an option to be considered, covert treatment is the only option, apart from physical restraint. Ultimately, a choice has to be made between a larger beneficence (control of symptoms and start of therapy) and a smaller malevolence (necessary therapy, but without the patient's knowledge and consent).A number of practical clinical scenarios are outlined wherein the psychiatrist should adopt covert treatment in the best interests of the patient. Ethical issues of autonomy, power, secrecy and malafide intent arise; each of these can be countered only by non-malfeasance (above all, do no harm) under the overarch of beneficence (even above that, dare to care). An advance directive with health care proxy that sanctions covert treatment is presented. Questions raised by the practical clinical scenarios are then answered.THE CONCLUSIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: covert treatment, i.e, temporary treatment without knowledge and consent, is seldom needed or justified. But, where needed, it remains an essential weapon in the psychiatrist's armamentarium: to be used cautiously but without guilt or fear of censure. However, the psychiatrist must use it very judiciously, in the rarest of rare cases, provided: i) he is firmly convinced that it is needed for the welfare of the patient; ii) it is the only option available to tide over a crisis; iii) continuing efforts are made to try and get the patient into regular psychiatric care; iv) the psychiatrist makes it clear that its use is only as a stop-gap; v) he is always alert to the chances of malevolence inherent in such a process and keeps away from conniving or associating with anything even remotely suspicious; and vi) he takes due precautions to ensure that he does not land into legal tangles later.The need of the hour is to explore in greater detail the need and justification for covert treatment, to lay out clear and firm parameters for its legitimate use, follow it up with standard literature and, finally, to establish clinical practice guidelines by unconflicted authors.The term "covert treatment" is preferable to "surreptitious prescribing"; they should not be used synonymously, the latter term being reserved for those cases where there is malafide intent.

How should we implement psychiatric advance directives? Views of consumers, caregivers, mental health providers and researchers

The aim of this study was to measure expert consensus on the implementation of Psychiatric Advance Directives (PADs) within the Veterans Health Administration. We conducted a two-round Delphi study with 55 panelists including consumers, caregivers, mental health providers and researchers. For a number of items where no positive or negative consensus was reached we found differences between the views of consumers and non-consumers, reflecting consumer's preferences for nonmedical settings for completion and assistance with completion independent of the treatment team. Thus, the principle of consumer choice that applies to MHAD content should also be applied to the process of completion offered.

Psychiatric advance directives and reduction of coercive crisis interventions

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric advance directives are intended to enable self-determined treatment for patients who lose decisional capacity, and thus reduce the need for coercive interventions such as police transport, involuntary commitment, seclusion and restraints, and involuntary medications during mental health crises; whether PADs can help prevent the use of these interventions in practice is unknown. AIMS: This study examined whether completion of a Facilitated Psychiatric Advance Directive (F-PAD) was associated with reduced frequency of coercive crisis interventions. METHOD: The study prospectively compared a sample of PAD completers (n=147) to non-completers (n=92) on the frequency of any coercive interventions, with follow-up assessments at 6, 12, and 24 months. Repeated-measures multiple regression analysis was used to estimate the effect of PADs. Models controlled for relevant covariates including a propensity score for initial selection to PADs, baseline history of coercive interventions, concurrent global functioning and crisis episodes with decisional incapacity. RESULTS: F-PAD completion was associated with lower odds of coercive interventions (adjusted OR=0.50; 95% CI=0.26-0.96; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PADs may be an effective tool for reducing coercive interventions around incapacitating mental health crises. Less coercion should lead to greater autonomy and self-determination for people with severe mental illness.

Views of service users and providers on joint crisis plans: single blind randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

We report participants' and case managers' use of and views on the value of Joint Crisis Plans (JCPs), shown to reduce compulsory hospitalisation and violence.

METHOD

One hundred sixty people with psychosis or bipolar disorder participated in a randomized controlled trial. Intervention group participants were interviewed on receipt of the JCP, on hospitalisation, and at 15 month follow-ups; case managers were interviewed at 15 months.

RESULTS

Sixty-two of the 65 people who received a JCP (95%) were interviewed at least once. Depending on the question, 46-96% of JCP holders (N = 44) responded positively to questions concerning the value of the JCP at immediate follow up. At 15 months the proportions of positive responses to the different questions was 14-82% (N = 50). Thirty-nine to eighty-five per cent of case managers (N = 28) responded positively at 15 months. Comparing the total scores of participants who had completed both the initial and follow up questionnaires showed a shift in responses, from positive to no change, from the immediate follow up to 15 months (means 6.1 vs. 8.3, difference 2.2, 95% CI 0.8, 3.7, P = 0.003) where a higher score indicates less positive views. The two items that received highest endorsement also showed least shift over time, i.e. whether the participant would recommend the JCP to others (90% initial vs. 82% at 15 months) and whether they felt more in control of their mental health problem as a result (71% at initial vs. 56% at 15 months). Case managers at 15 months were more positive than service users, with total score means of 5 vs. 7.8 (difference -2.8, 95% CI -4.5, -1.2, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The best supported hypothesis was that participants felt more in control of their mental health problem. Together with the previously reported outcomes, this suggests JCPs empower their holders to obtain their preferred care and treatment in a crisis. Further research is needed to more clearly identify the mechanisms of action of JCPs and how their initial positive impact can be sustained.

Advocacy in mental health nursing: an integrative review of the literature

The term 'advocacy' has taken on a meaning beyond its legal origins and is now of importance as a concept in health and social care. Within nursing, the role of advocate has been accepted as an important one, although there are arguments against nurses taking on such a role. The majority of papers on this topic relate to nursing generically rather than being specifically mental health oriented. Nurses need to be made aware of the legal framework within which they practice, in terms of duty of care within their role of nurse advocate, maintaining standards of advocacy acceptable to their professional body, accountability relating to action and omission of actions, guidance on guarding against stepping beyond the boundaries of their professional practice of advocacy, and to have adequate knowledge of the law. This paper offers a critique of nursing advocacy models, raising a number of mental health nursing issues and identifying some areas for further research.

Advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

An advance directive is a document specifying a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make such decisions in the future. They have been used in end-of-life settings to direct care but should be well suited to the mental health setting.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2008), BIOSIS (1985 to February 2008), CINAHL (1982 to February 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), PsycINFO (1872 to February 2008), as well as SCISEARCH and Google - Internet search engine (February 2008). We inspected relevant references and contacted first authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adults with severe mental illness, comparing any form of advance directive with standard care for health service and clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence interval again using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance.

Reducing barriers to completing psychiatric advance directives

OBJECTIVE

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) allow individuals to plan for future mental health treatment. However, little is known about barriers to PAD completion. This paper examines an intervention's effect in reducing barriers to PAD completion.

METHOD

Patients were randomly assigned to a facilitated PAD session or control group. Barriers associated with (1) the PAD documents and (2) external support for PADs were assessed at baseline (n = 462), 6 months (n = 380) and 1 year (n = 362).

RESULTS

There were no significant baseline between-group differences on the two barriers. However, at follow-up both barriers were significantly lower in the experimental group. Further, barriers were predictive of PAD completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Structured facilitation can significantly reduce barriers to PAD completion. However, the intervention did not eliminate barriers. Findings are discussed in the context of possible system-level changes to further reduce barriers to PAD completion.

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.

Advance directives in bipolar disorder, a cognitive behavioural conceptualization

Mental Health Advance Directives (MHADs) are potentially useful for bipolar patients due to the episodic characteristic of their disease. An interest for the development of a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) approach in the creation process of MHADs arises because of a lack of efficiency of the non-collaborative processes, the potential impact of psychopathology and the awareness of the illness in MHADs' content, the link between the patient's directives interest and the case manager's interest, and the lower interest reported by the potentially high MHADs beneficiary. The CBT intervention in the MHADs creation process that is proposed in this article is based on: the self-determination model for adherence, the cognitive representation of illness model, and the concordance model. The principles of the intervention were adapted from Motivational interviewing's (MI), emphasising personal choice and responsibility, and focusing on the patient's concerns about the treatment through Socratic dialogue. During the course of 2004, 20 advance directives written by patients (17 with bipolar disorder, 3 with schizoaffective disorder) have been collected following the described intervention. Therefore, this intervention seems to be relevant for patients with bipolar disorder.

Psychiatric advance directives and the right to refuse treatment in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To provide a Canadian perspective on psychiatric advance directives (PADs) and assess whether these documents can be implemented as an adjunct to mental health services to empower people with mental illness.

METHOD

We reviewed Canadian jurisprudence over the past 15 years related to people with mental illness and the right to refuse medical treatment. Provincial mental health legislation is explained to discern PADs' possible effect in Canada.

RESULTS

Evidence is accumulating that legal and mental health professionals see PADs as useful documents to promote patient autonomy. Canadian jurisprudence, mental health legislation, and psychological research suggest that PADs could be implemented by legal and mental health professionals. Mental health legislation has the power to prohibit or facilitate choices regarding the right to refuse medical treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests the need for greater empirical research to be conducted in Canada to determine stakeholders' perceptions of whether PADs could successfully be implemented and their interaction with legislation.

Competence to complete psychiatric advance directives: effects of facilitated decision making

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) statutes presume competence to complete these documents, but the range and dimensions of decisional competence among people who actually complete PADs is unknown. This study examines clinical and neuropsychological correlates of performance on a measure to assess competence to complete PADs and investigates the effects of a facilitated PAD intervention on decisional capacity. N=469 adults with psychotic disorders were interviewed at baseline and then randomly assigned to either a control group in which they received written materials about PADs or to an intervention group in which they were offered an opportunity to meet individually with a trained facilitator to create a PAD. At baseline, domains on the Decisional Competence Assessment Tool for PADs (DCAT-PAD) were most strongly associated with IQ, verbal memory, abstract thinking, and psychiatric symptoms. At one-month follow-up, participants in the intervention group showed more improvement on the DCAT-PAD than controls, particularly among participants with pre-morbid IQ estimates below the median of 100. The results suggest that PAD facilitation is an effective method to boost competence of cognitively-impaired clients to write PADs and make treatment decisions within PADs, thereby maximizing the chances their advance directives will be valid.

An analysis of the definitions and elements of recovery: a review of the literature

As mental health recovery gains traction, many people have put forward varying definitions. Few attempts have been made to create a dimensional analysis of the recovery literature that assesses the growing consensus about what recovery is or what its definition should entail. This paper incorporates an ecological framework to take the individual's life context into account while emphasizing both the reestablishment of one's mental health (i.e., first order change) and the mitigation of the oppressive nature of barriers imposed by the greater community (i.e., second order change) so that people may experience social integration and community inclusion.

Facilitated psychiatric advance directives: a randomized trial of an intervention to foster advance treatment planning among persons with severe mental illness

OBJECTIVE

Studies show a high potential demand for psychiatric advance directives but low completion rates. The authors conducted a randomized study of a structured, manualized intervention to facilitate completion of psychiatric advance directives.

METHOD

A total of 469 patients with severe mental illness were randomly assigned to a facilitated psychiatric advance directive session or a control group that received written information about psychiatric advance directives and referral to resources in the public mental health system. Completion of an advance directive, its structure and content, and its short-term effects on working alliance and treatment satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS

Sixty-one percent of participants in the facilitated session completed an advance directive or authorized a proxy decision maker, compared with only 3% of control group participants. Psychiatrists rated the advance directives as highly consistent with standards of community practice. Most participants used the advance directive to refuse some medications and to express preferences for admission to specific hospitals and not others, although none used an advance directive to refuse all treatment. At 1-month follow-up, participants in the facilitated session had a greater working alliance with their clinicians and were more likely than those in the control group to report receiving the mental health services they believed they needed.

CONCLUSIONS

The facilitation session is an effective method of helping patients complete psychiatric advance directives and ensuring that the documents contain useful information about patients' treatment preferences. Achieving the promise of psychiatric advance directives may require system-level policies to embed facilitation of these instruments in usual-care care settings.

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.

Transforming systems of care: the American Association of Community Psychiatrists Guidelines for Recovery Oriented Services

Thinking about recovery has grown significantly over the last 70 years, and particularly in the past fifteen. Promotion of recovery has recently been recognized as an organizing principle for the transformation of behavioral health services. Recovery is a personal process of growth and change which typically embraces hope, autonomy and affiliation as elements of establishing satisfying and productive lives in spite of disabling conditions or experiences. Recovery oriented services replace paternalistic, illness oriented perspectives with collaborative, autonomy enhancing approaches and represent a major cultural shift in service delivery. Recovery oriented services replace the myth of chronicity and dependence with a message of individualism, empowerment and choice in the context of collaborative relationships with service providers. The American Association of Community Psychiatrists has developed Guidelines for Recovery Oriented Services to facilitate the transformation of services to this new paradigm. The guidelines are divided into three domains: administration, treatment, and supports, each consisting of several elements for which recovery enhancing characteristics are defined. Several example indicators are also provided for each element. This paper presents these guidelines and discusses their application.

Psychiatric advance directives: qualitative study of informed deliberations by mental health service users

BACKGROUND

Established legal mandates and high expectations for psychiatric advance directives are not matched by empirical evidence documenting their actual implementation.

AIMS

To explore the interests, concerns and planning activities of informed mental health service users contemplating such directives.

METHOD

Standard qualitative research techniques were used: field observations, interviews, focus groups, archival research and key informant interviews; 33 persons participated in the interviews and focus groups. Transcripts were coded and analysed for thematic content, and results were member-checked.

RESULTS

Training set in motion labour-intensive projects: conceptualising how a psychiatric advance directive would work in one's life, mobilising resources, reviewing past experiences and assessing risks. Especially meaningful was the prospect of being treated as a responsible agent in future interactions with the mental health system.

CONCLUSIONS

Advance directives are best thought of as complex planning tools for future psychiatric crisis management, rather than focal interventions to enhance compliance. Research is needed to explore the institutional response to this prospective decision-sharing initiative.