Interpretations of legal criteria for involuntary psychiatric admission: a qualitative analysis

BMC Health Services Research

Kristian N Ugstad¹  Eli Feiring¹ 

[1] Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Blindern, Oslo 0317, Norway

关键词: Professional ethics;    Legal norms;    Qualitative;    Paternalism;    Coercion;    Psychiatric care;   

Others  :  1118243
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-014-0500-x

 received in 2014-04-26, accepted in 2014-10-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The use of involuntary admission in psychiatry may be necessary to enable treatment and prevent harm, yet remains controversial. Mental health laws in high-income countries typically permit coercive treatment of persons with mental disorders to restore health or prevent future harm. Criteria intended to regulate practice leave scope for discretion. The values and beliefs of staff may become a determinating factor for decisions. Previous research has only to a limited degree addressed how legal criteria for involuntary psychiatric admission are interpreted by clinical decision-makers. We examined clinicians’ interpretations of criteria for involuntary admission under the Norwegian Mental Health Care Act. This act applies a status approach, whereby involuntary admission can be used at the presence of mental disorder and need for treatment or perceived risk to the patient or others. Further, best interest assessments carry a large justificatory burden and open for a range of extra-legislative factors to be considered.

Methods

Deductive thematic analysis was used. Three ideal types of attitudes-to-coercion were developed, denoted paternalistic, deliberative and interpretive. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 10 Norwegian clinicians with experience from admissions to psychiatric care were carried out. Data was fit into the preconceived analytical frame. We hypothesised that the data would mirror the recent shift from paternalism towards a more human rights focused approach in modern mental health care.

Results

The paternalistic perspective was, however, clearly expressed in the data. Involuntary admission was considered to be in the patient’s best interest, and patients suffering from serious mental disorder were assumed to lack decision-making capacity. In addition to assessment of need, outcome effectiveness and risk of harm, extra-legislative factors such as patients’ functioning, experience, resistance, networks, and follow-up options were told to influence decisions. Variation in how these multiple factors were taken into consideration was found. Some of the participants’ statements could be attributed to the deliberative perspective, most of which concerned participants’ beliefs about an ideal decision-making situation.

Conclusions

Our data suggest how a deliberative-oriented ideal of reasoning about legal criteria for involuntary admission lapses into paternalism in clinical decision-making. Supplementary professional guidelines should be developed.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Feiring and Ugstad; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Le Grand J: Motivation, agency, and public policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2006.
• [2]Prinsen EJD, van Delden JJM: Can we justify eliminating coercive measures in psychiatry? J Med Ethics 2009, 35:69-73.
• [3]Welsh S, Deahl MP: Modern psychiatric ethics. Lancet 2002, 359:253-255.
• [4]Sibitz I, Scheutz A, Lakeman R, Schrank B, Schaffer M, Amering M: Impact of coercive measures on life stories: qualitative study. BJP 2011, 199:239-244.
• [5]Kogstad RE: Protecting mental health clients’ dignity – the importance of legal control. Int J Law Psychiatry 2009, 32:383-391.
• [6]Høyer G: Involuntary hospitalization in contemporary mental health care. Some (still) unanswered questions. J Ment Health 2008, 17:281-292.
• [7]Owen GS, Szmukler G, Richardson G, Davis AS, Raymond V, Freyenhagen F, Martin W, Hotopf M: Decision-making capacity for treatment in psychiatric and medical in-patients: cross-sectional, comparative study. BJP 2013, 203:461-467.
• [8]Okai D, Owen G, McGuire H, Singh S, Churchill R, Hotopf M: Mental capacity in psychiatric patients: systematic review. BJP 2007, 191:291-297.
• [9]Lepping P: Overestimating patients’ capacity. BJP 2011, 199:355-356.
• [10]Kallert TW, Katsakou C, Adamowski T, Dembrimskas A, Fiorillo A, Kjellin L: Coerced hospital admission and symptom change – a prospective observational multi-centre study. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(11):e28191. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028191
• [11]Singh JP, Fazel S, Gueorguieva R, Buchanan A: Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments. BJP 2014, 204:180-187.
• [12]Dawson J: Psychopathology and civil commitment criteria. Med Law Rev 1996, 4:62-83.
• [13]Steinert T, Schmid P: Effect of voluntariness of participation in treatment on short-term outcome of inpatients with schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv 2004, 55:786-791.
• [14]Steinert T, Lepping P, Bernhardsgrütter R, Conca A, Hatling T, Janssen W, Keski-Valkama A, Mayoral F, Whittington R: Incidence of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric hospitals: a literature review and survey of international trends. Sos Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2010, 45:889-897.
• [15]Wynn R: Coercion in psychiatric care: clinical, legal, and ethical controversies. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract 2006, 10:247-251.
• [16]Salize HJ, Dressing H: Epidemiology of involuntary placement of mentally ill people across the European Union. BJP 2004, 184:163-268.
• [17]Myklebust LH, Sørgaard K, Wynn R: Local psychiatric beds appear to decrease the use of involuntary admission: a case-registry study. BMC Health Serv Res 2014, 14:64. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Lepping P, Steinert T, Gebhardt R, Rudinger P, Röttgers H: Attitudes of mental health professionals and lay-people towards involuntary admission and treatment in England and Germany – a questionnaire analysis. Eur Psychiatry 2004, 19:91-95.
• [19]Husum TL, Bjørngaard JH, Finset A, Ruud T: Staff attitudes and thoughts about the use of coercion in acute psychiatric wards. Sos Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2011, 46:893-901.
• [20]Brooks R: U.S. Psychiatrists’ beliefs and wants about involuntary civil commitment grounds. Int J Law Psychiatry 2006, 29:13-21.
• [21]Luchins DJ, Cooper AE, Hanrahan P, Rasinski K: Psychiatrists’ attitudes towards involuntary hospitalization. Psychiatr Serv 2004, 55:1058-1060.
• [22]Diseth RR, Bøgwald KP, Høglend PA: Attitudes among stakeholders towards compulsory mental health care in Norway. Int J Law Psychiatry 2011, 34:1-6.
• [23]Wynn R, Myklebust LH, Bratlid T: Psychologists and coercion: decisions regarding involuntary psychiatric admission and treatment in a group of Norwegian psychologists. Nord J Psychiatry 2007, 61:433-437.
• [24]Steinert T, Lepping P, Baranyi R, Hoffman M, Lehrer H: Compulsory admission and treatment in schizophrenia. A study of ethical attitudes in four European countries. Sos Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2005, 40:635-641.
• [25]Engleman N, Jobes D, Berman A, Langbein L: Clinicians’ decision making about involuntary commitment. Psychiatr Serv 1998, 49:941-945.
• [26]Boyatzis RE: Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA; 1998.
• [27]Yin RK: Case Study Research (3rd ed). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2003.
• [28]Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL: Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 1992, 267:2221-2226.
• [29]Pelto-Piri V, Engstöm K, Engström I: Paternalism, autonomy and reciprocity: ethical perspectives in encounters with patients in psychiatric in-patient care. BMC Med Ethics 2013, 14:49. BioMed Central Full Text
• [30]Johannessen HA, Dieserud G, Claussen B, Zahl PH: Changes in mental health services and suicide mortality in Norway: an ecological study. BMC Health Serv Res 2011, 11:68. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Bruk av tvang i psykisk helsevern for voksne 2012. Norwegian Directorate of Health IS-0410, Oslo; 2013.
• [32]Tansey O: Process tracing and elite interviewing: a case for Non-probability sampling. PS: Polit Sci Polit 2007, 4:765-772.
• [33]Syse A: Psykisk helsevernloven med kommentarer. Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, Oslo; 2004.
• [34]Diseth RR, Høglend PA: Compulsory mental health care in Norway. The treatment criterion. Int J Law Psychiatry 2014, 37:168-173.
• [35]Dawson J, Szmukler G: Fusion of mental health and incapacity legislation. BJP 2006, 188:504-509.
• [36]Callaghan S, Ryan C, Kerridge I: Risk of suicide is insufficient warrant for coercive treatment for mental illness. Int J Law Psychiatry 2013, 36:374-385.
• [37]Szmukler G, Holloway F: Reform of the mental health Act: health or safety? BJP 2000, 177:196-200.
• [38]Falkum E, Førde R: Paternalism, patient autonomy, and moral deliberation in the physician-patient relationship. Attitudes among Norwegian physicians. Soc Sci Med 2001, 52:239-248.