Dataset Information

Refusing Medication Therapy in Involuntary Inpatient Treatment-A Multiperspective Qualitative Study.

ABSTRACT: Objective: Between June 2012 and February 2013, two decisions by the German Federal Constitutional Court restricted the so-far common practice to use involuntary medication in inpatients who were involuntarily hospitalized. Up to then, involuntary medication was justified by a judge's decision on involuntary hospitalization. It could be applied according to clinical judgment even against the declared will of a patient. Since then, all domestic laws related to involuntary treatment had to be revised. For several months, involuntary medication was allowed only in an emergency. We were interested in the impact of the changed legal framework on the experiences of inpatients, their relatives, and clinical professionals during that time. Methods: Thirty-two interviews were analyzed qualitatively using a grounded theory methodology framework. Results: As a consequence of the restrictions to involuntary medication, special efforts by nursing and medical staff were required concerning de-escalation, ward management, and the promotion of treatment commitment in inpatients who refused medication. Family caregivers were also under strong pressure. They wanted to help and to protect their relatives, but some also welcomed the use of coercion if the patient refused treatment. Most of the interviewed patients had not even noticed that their rights to refuse medication had been strengthened. They complained primarily about the involuntary hospital stay and the associated limitations of their everyday lives. While patients and family members evaluated the refusal of medication from a biographical perspective, the mental health care professionals' focus was on the patients' symptoms, and they understood the situation from a professional perspective. It was obvious that, in any of the four perspectives, the problem of feeling restricted was crucial and that all groups strived to gain back their scope of action. Conclusion: The temporary ban on involuntary medication questioned the hitherto common routines in inpatient treatment, in particular when patients refused to take medication. Each of the different groups did not feel good about the situation, for different reasons, however. As a consequence, it might be indispensable to increase awareness of the different perspectives and to focus the efforts on the establishment of nonviolent treatment structures and practices.

SUBMITTER: Jaeger S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6520436 | biostudies-other | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Refusing Medication Therapy in Involuntary Inpatient Treatment-A Multiperspective Qualitative Study.

Jaeger Susanne S Hüther Franziska F Steinert Tilman T

Frontiers in psychiatry 20190509

<b>Objective:</b> Between June 2012 and February 2013, two decisions by the German Federal Constitutional Court restricted the so-far common practice to use involuntary medication in inpatients who were involuntarily hospitalized. Up to then, involuntary medication was justified by a judge's decision on involuntary hospitalization. It could be applied according to clinical judgment even against the declared will of a patient. Since then, all domestic laws related to involuntary treatment had to ...[more]

PMID: 31139098

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInvoluntary treatment for individuals who lack sufficient capacity to make informed decisions regarding treatment has been associated with increased rates of injectable antipsychotics, antipsychotic polytherapy, and/or high doses. However, little is known about non-antipsychotic psychotropic prescription, or psychotropic medication burden as a more encompassing approach for people treated involuntarily. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between Mental Health Act (MHA) status and psychotropic polypharmacy and/or high-dose medication prescribing practices in an Australian inpatient mental health unit.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of 800 adults discharged from a large metropolitan Queensland mental health unit was undertaken. Data was collected for 200 individuals, discharged on at least one psychotropic medicine, at four time periods; Cohort 1 (on or before 31st January 2014), Cohort 2 (2015), Cohort 3 (2016) and Cohort 4 (2017). The number of prescribed medicines and total daily doses were recorded and reviewed for alignment with current clinical guidelines. Participant demographics and clinical characteristics were compared by individual MHA status using chi-square test for categorical variables and analysis of variance for continuous variables. Associations between MHA status and prescribing practices (psychotropic polypharmacy and/or high-dose prescribing) were assessed using bivariate and multivariate binomial logistic regression models. Age, gender, birth country, year of admission, admissions in previous 12?months, primary diagnosis, ECT/clozapine treatment, and other psychotropic medications were adjusted as covariates.ResultsRegression analysis found that compared to their voluntary counterparts, individuals treated involuntarily were 2.7 times more likely to be prescribed an antipsychotic at discharge, 8.8 times more likely to be prescribed more than one antipsychotic at discharge and 1.65 times more likely to be prescribed high-dose antipsychotic treatment at discharge. The adjusted model also found that they were half as likely to be prescribed an antidepressant at discharge.ConclusionImplicit review of justifications for increased psychotropic medication burden (antipsychotic polypharmacy and high-doses) in those treated involuntarily is required to ensure clinical outcomes and overall quality of life are improved in this vulnerable group. Clearly documented medication histories, reconciliation at discharge and directions for medication management after discharge are necessary to ensure quality use of medicines.

Project description:Background: The Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP) has been tailored specifically to the demands of patients with persistent depressive disorder (PDD). According to the CBASP model, PDD patients are supposed to live perceptually disconnected from their social environment, which consequently maintains depression. While initially developed as an individual treatment modality, the adaptation for group therapy yields an important interpersonal space. However, little is known about the specific factors that contribute to patients' benefit from the CBASP group modality. Methods: The analyzed sample comprised N = 87 PDD patients who completed a 12 week multimodal inpatient treatment including 2 weekly CBASP-specific individual and group sessions, respectively, as well as CBASP-unspecific medical contacts, pharmacotherapy and complementary therapies. Group sessions included trainings in situational analysis and interpersonal skills. Interpersonal change over therapy was examined based on the patients' self-perceived interpersonal problems (IIP) and the impact messages as perceived by their individual therapists (IMI). Pre and post-treatment data were compared using within-sample t-tests. Additionally, patients evaluated CBASP group therapy on a feedback form. They were invited to reflect on individual benefits and its helpful and unhelpful aspects. Qualitative content analysis with inductive category development was used to analyze feedback. Inter-rater reliability was computed to confirm categories before summarizing the frequencies of reported factors. Results: Self-perceived interpersonal distress significantly decreased over therapy. Patients reported reduced interpersonal problems and therapists reported more friendly and dominant impact messages. Interestingly, patients who showed a significant depressive symptom reduction described higher change scores. Regarding qualitative data, patients reported five main benefits from group therapy: Gain in social competence, self-confidence, self-reflection, interpersonal dynamics, and optimism/universality. Patients responding to CBASP identified significantly more factors than non-responders. Conclusions: Compared to studies with individual CBASP only, the present findings suggest that CBASP group therapy may contribute to the improvement of interpersonal behavior. Group therapy is discussed as a potential boosting effect for individual CBASP. However, as the present data were collected in a multimodal inpatient setting without competitor, randomized controlled trials are warranted that investigate the specific benefits of the group modality or the combined individual and group therapy over individual CBASP only.

Project description:BackgroundIn British Columbia (BC), Canada, clinicians are responsible for giving involuntary psychiatric patients rights information upon admission. Yet an investigation by the BC Office of the Ombudsperson found that clinicians are not always fulfilling this responsibility. The Ombudsperson recommended that the provincial government fund an independent body to give rights advice to patients.MethodsTo understand how clinicians feel about this recommendation, focus groups of clinicians who may give psychiatric patients rights information (n = 81) were conducted in Vancouver, BC, to probe their attitudes toward independent rights advisors. The focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed.ResultsMost clinicians believe that giving rights information is within their scope of practice, although some acknowledge that it poses a conflict of interest when the patient wishes to challenge the treatment team's decisions. Participants' chief concerns about an independent rights-advice service were that (a) patients may experience a delay in receiving their rights information, (b) integrating rights advisors into the workflow would complicate an already chaotic admission process, and (c) more patients would be counselled to challenge their hospitalization, leading to an increased administrative workload for clinical staff. However, many participants believed that independent rights advisors would be a positive addition to the admission process, both allowing clinicians to focus on treatment and serving as a source of rights-related information.ConclusionsParticipants were generally amenable to an independent rights-advice service, suggesting that the introduction of rights advisors need not result in an adversarial relationship between treatment team and patient, as opponents of the proposal fear. Clearly distinguishing between basic rights information and in-depth rights advice could address several of the clinicians' concerns about the role that independent rights advisors would play in the involuntary admission process. Clinicians' and other stakeholders' concerns should be considered as the province develops its rights-advice service.

Project description:Objective: Paths toward referral to involuntary psychiatric admission mainly unfold in the contexts where people live their everyday lives. Modern health services are organized such that primary health care services are often those who provide long-term follow-up for people with severe mental illness and who serve as gatekeepers to involuntary admissions at the secondary care level. However, most efforts to reduce involuntary admissions have been directed toward the secondary health care level; interventions at the primary care level are sparse. To adapt effective measures for this care level, a better understanding is needed of the contextual characteristics surrounding individuals' paths ending in referrals for involuntary admission. This study aims to explore what characterizes such paths, based on the personal experiences of multiple stakeholders. Method: One hundred and three participants from five Norwegian municipalities participated in individual interviews or focus groups. They included professionals from the primary and secondary care levels and people with lived experience of severe mental illness and/or involuntary admission and carers. Data was subject to constant comparison in inductive analysis inspired by grounded theory. Results: Four main categories emerged from the analysis: deterioration and deprivation, difficult to get help, insufficient adaptation of services provided, and when things get acute. Combined, these illustrate typical characteristics of paths toward referral for involuntary psychiatric admission. Conclusion: The results demonstrate the complexity of individuals' paths toward referral to involuntary psychiatric admission and underline the importance of comprehensive and individualized approaches to reduce involuntary admissions. Furthermore, the findings indicate a gap in current practice between the policies to reduce involuntary admissions and the provision of, access to, and adaptation of less restrictive services for adults with severe mental illness at risk of involuntary admissions. To address this gap, further research is needed on effective measures and interventions at the primary care level.

Dataset Information

Refusing Medication Therapy in Involuntary Inpatient Treatment-A Multiperspective Qualitative Study.

Publications

Refusing Medication Therapy in Involuntary Inpatient Treatment-A Multiperspective Qualitative Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure