Article

Psychiatric advance directives and reduction of coercive crisis interventions

Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Journal of Mental Health (Impact Factor: 1.01). 06/2008; 17(3):255-267. DOI: 10.1080/09638230802052195
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: H. Ryan Wagner, Dec 14, 2014
1 Follower
 · 
184 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For people with Bipolar Affective Disorder, a self-binding (advance) directive (SBD), by which they commit themselves to treatment during future episodes of mania, even if unwilling, can seem the most rational way to deal with an imperfect predicament. Knowing that mania will almost certainly cause enormous damage to themselves, their preferred solution may well be to allow trusted others to enforce treatment and constraint, traumatic though this may be. No adequate provision exists for drafting a truly effective SBD and efforts to establish such provision are hampered by very valid, but also paralysing ethical, clinical and legal concerns. Effectively, the autonomy and rights of people with bipolar are being 'protected' through being denied an opportunity to protect themselves. From a standpoint firmly rooted in the clinical context and experience of mania, this article argues that an SBD, based on a patient-centred evaluation of capacity to make treatment decisions (DMC-T) and grounded within the clinician-patient relationship, could represent a legitimate and ethically coherent form of self-determination. After setting out background information on fluctuating capacity, mania and advance directives, this article proposes a framework for constructing such an SBD, and considers common objections, possible solutions and suggestions for future research. Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 05/2015; 78. DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.04.004 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Consumers' satisfaction with inpatient mental health care is recognized as a key quality indicator that prospectively predicts functional and clinical outcomes. Coercive treatment experience is a frequently cited source of dissatisfaction with inpatient care, yet more research is needed to understand the factors that influence consumers' perceptions of coercion and its effects on satisfaction, including potential "downstream" effects of past coercive events on current treatment satisfaction. The current study examined associations between objective and subjective indices of coercive treatments and patients' satisfaction with care in a psychiatric inpatient sample (N = 240). Lower satisfaction ratings were independently associated with three coercive treatment variables: current involuntary admission, perceived coercion during current admission, and self-reported history of being refused a requested medication. Albeit preliminary, these results document associations between patients' satisfaction ratings and their subjective experiences of coercion during both current and prior hospitalizations.
    Community Mental Health Journal 09/2012; DOI:10.1007/s10597-012-9539-5 · 1.03 Impact Factor