reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care george szmukler institute of psychiatry south london...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Reducing ‘coercion’ in
mental health care
George SzmuklerInstitute of Psychiatry
South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Institute of Psychiatry at The Maudsley
![Page 2: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
‘Coercion’
Increased salience over past 2 decades• Growing emphasis on ‘human rights’• Community care and protection of the public
– ‘Assertive community treatment’ – CTOs
• New types of clinician-patient relationships in community care
![Page 3: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Outline
• Defining ‘coercion’• Review studies aiming to reduce
coercion• Implications for further research
![Page 4: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
‘Coercion’
• Not synonymous with pressures on reluctant patient
• Specific, narrow meaning• Prefer the less moralised general term –
‘treatment pressures’
![Page 5: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Spectrum of treatment pressures
1. Persuasion
2. Interpersonal leverage
3. Inducements
4. Threats
5. Compulsory treatment
![Page 6: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Treatment pressures
1. Persuasion – Appeal to reason
2. Interpersonal leverage– Exercised through emotional dependency– Patient’s wish to please
![Page 7: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Spectrum of treatment pressures
1. Persuasion
2. Interpersonal leverage
3. Inducements
4. Threats
5. Compulsory treatment
![Page 8: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Treatment pressures
Inducements (or offers) v. threats
• Involve conditional (or bi-conditional) propositions
• “If…………………, then………………”
If the patient accepts treatment A, then the clinician will do X; or if the patient does not accept treatment A, then the clinician will not do X (or will do Y)
![Page 9: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
‘Coercion’
• Wertheimer (1987): Threats coerce, offers generally do not
• The crux of the distinction between threats and offers is that A makes a threat when B will be worse off than in some relevant base-line position if B does not accept A’s proposal; but A makes an offer when B will be no worse off than in some relevant base-line position if B does not accept A’s proposal.
• Fixing the baseline
• ‘Moral baseline’ - threat makes an ‘ought’ conditional
![Page 10: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Threats v Offers
Some examples:
• Second hand furniture• Mental health courts• SSI/SSDI representative payee
![Page 11: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
‘Coercion’
Other accounts of ‘coercion’• ‘subjective’ v ‘objective’
– Rhodes (2000): • ‘perceived threat avoidance behaviour’
• then analyse the context: reasonable perception?
• possibly no threat intended (‘mobster’ example)
• can be useful perspective
– Feinberg (1986)• pressure on the will
• ‘Perceived’ coercion (research)
![Page 12: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Coercion
DeceptionFailing to correct a misconception
that carries a threate.g. real versus perceived powers associated with outpatient
commitment orders
![Page 13: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Acts which resemble ‘coercive’ threats
• ‘Unwelcome predictions’ – statement of fact v threat
– accuracy; clinician as agent?
•Exploitation– may be morally reprehensible
– background threat
– but subject not worse off according to moral base-line
– unfair advantage
– may be mutually advantageous
![Page 14: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Problematic offers or inducements
• Subvert patient’s decision-making• Powerful inducements
–Offers of highly desirable goods– Payment for accepting treatment
•When, if ever, is this acceptable?
![Page 15: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Problematic inducements
• Constraints on inducements – setting a ‘base-line’ for mental health services –
• What are the entitlements?• Paradox: the greater the range of services or help offered,
the greater the scope for threats (or coercion)– questions of ‘fairness’ –
• why should some be offered inducements and others not?
![Page 16: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Spectrum of treatment pressures
1. Persuasion
2. Interpersonal leverage
3. Inducements
4. Threats
5. Compulsory treatment (and associated interventions
- forced medication, physical restriction, seclusion)
![Page 17: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Compulsion
• Inpatient• Community treatment orders:– Substitute for inpatient order - ‘less restrictive alternative’
– Early discharge - ‘less restrictive alternative’
– Prevent relapse - ‘preventive’
![Page 18: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Interventions
• Is there scope for reducing ‘coercion’?
• Studied interventions– 1. Inpatient coercion– 2. Advance statements
![Page 19: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Is there scope for reducing ‘coercive’ interventions?
![Page 20: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Involuntary admissions in EU countries 1999 - 2000International variation
Salize & Dressing (2004)
![Page 21: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Kjellin et al, Int J Law Psychiatry 2008
Compulsory treatment in Sweden 2001 - 2002Intra-national variation
![Page 22: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Compulsory admissions to NHS facilities, including high security hospitals and private mental nursing homes
1987-2005Total orders, changes from informal to section, and court orders
![Page 23: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Kjellin et al, Int J Law Psychiatry 2008
Compulsory treatment in Sweden 1979 - 2002
![Page 24: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Mental Health Review Board (Victoria, Australia): statistics
1996/1997 1999/2000 2006/2007 % change
Cases listed 10,522 13,196 18,719 1996 to 2006 + 78%
1999 to 2006 + 42%
Mental Health Review Board of Victoria Annual Report - 2007-2008
![Page 25: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Janssen et al, Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology 2008
Use of seclusion - international variation
![Page 26: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Kjellin et al, Nordic J Psychiatry, 2004
‘Coercive’ measures: Intra-national variation
Sweden 1997 -1999
![Page 27: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Coercive Measures
![Page 28: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Interventions to reduce coercion: the evidence
• Inpatient coercion• Advance statements
![Page 29: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Reducing inpatient ‘coercion’
1 ‘Perceived coercion’2 Seclusion and restraint
![Page 30: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
1 Intervention to reduce ‘perceived coercion’ on acute psychiatric wards
(Sorgaard 2004)
• Two acute wards: 5 week baseline phase - 12 week intervention phase
• 190 patients (~ 28% psychosis, ~50% mood disorders; ~50% involuntary admission)
• Intervention:– engage patient in formulating treatment plan
– regular joint evaluations of progress
– renegotiate treatment plans if necessary
– regular meetings at least once per week; jointly written daily case notes
• Outcome measures:– Patient satisfaction (SPRI) (+ patronizing communication and physical harassment)
– ‘Perceived coercion’ (Coercion ladder)
– Obtained shortly before discharge
![Page 31: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Results: Sorgaard 2004
But, problems with rate of compliance with intervention; low level of coercion overall; perhaps ‘perceived coercion’ mainly determined during admission process
![Page 32: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
2 Reducing restraint and seclusion on inpatient units
• No RCTs• Range of ‘systems’ interventions - unique to
each organisationLeadership, monitoring of seclusion episodes, staff education, treatment plan improvements, emergency response teams, behavioural consultation, increased staff:patient ratios, treating patients as active participants
• All are pre- post- comparisons• 15 studies reporting significant reductions in use
of seclusion Mistral et al (2002), Schreiner et al (2004), Sullivan et al (2004; 2005), Smith et al (2005), Fowler (2006)
or restraint/seclusion Kalogjera et al (1989), Taxis (2002), Donat (2003), Donovan et al (2003), Fisher (2003), D’Orio et al (2004), LeBel et al (2004), Green et al (2006), Regan et al (2006), Hellerstein et al (2007)
• Risk of ‘publication bias’
![Page 33: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
2 Reducing restraint and seclusion on inpatient units
Hallerstein et al, 2007
![Page 34: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Use of ‘advance statements’ to reduce coercion
• What is an ‘advance statement’?• Types of ‘advance statement’• Research evidence
![Page 35: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
‘Advance Statements’
• ‘Advance Statements’ express treatment preferences, anticipating a time in the future when the patient will not be capable of stating them.
• Purpose - to prevent adverse consequences of relapse, and thus to reduce the need for coercion, by giving patient more control over treatment decisions.
![Page 36: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Typology of ‘advance statements’
CrisisCard
Joint Crisis Plan
PsychiatricAdvanceDirective
(PAD)
Facilitated PAD
CPA
Involvement of care provider
no yes no no yes
Independent facilitator
no yes no yes no
Legally binding no no yes (but…)* yes (but…) no
Consumer led yes yes yes yes no
*Conflict with ‘community practice standards’; civil commitment. (Hargrave v Vermont – US court of Appeals (2003) – discrimination by being excluded from a public service)
![Page 37: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Dimensions of Advance Statements
Patient autonomy
Shared decisionmaking
Provider led
PAD, Crisis card, WRAP
fPAD
Joint Crisis Plan
Care Programme Approach
Risks lack of clinician awareness
or ‘buy in’
Risks providerpressure
Targetstherapeutic alliance
![Page 38: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Advance statements to reduce ‘coercion’
• ‘Joint Crisis Plans’ (Henderson et al)
• ‘Psychiatric Advance Directives’ (Papageorgiou et al)
• ‘Facilitated Psychiatric Advance Directives’ (Swanson et al)
![Page 39: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
A randomised controlled trial of Joint Crisis Plans
Claire Henderson, Kim Sutherby, Chris Flood, Morven Leese, Graham Thornicroft, George Szmukler,
Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London&
South London and Maudsley NHS Trust
Institute of Psychiatry at The Maudsley
![Page 40: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
An RCT of Joint Crisis Plans
Aim to evaluate the effectiveness of JCPs on in-patient service use and objective coercion (use of the Mental Health Act 1983) during admission.
![Page 41: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Joint Crisis Plan
•Experimental intervention – Project worker explains to patient– ‘Menu’ of subheadings– JCP meeting: facilitator; attendees,
negotiation; patient decides
–Controls: detailed information leaflets; written care plan (CPA)
![Page 42: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
![Page 43: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
![Page 44: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
![Page 45: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Methods• Study setting
– 7 south London CMHTs and one in Kent; ethnic minority mix
• Inclusion & exclusion criteria– In contact; admitted at least once in previous 2 years; psychosis
or BPD
• Outcomes– Primary: admissions; length of hospitalisation– Secondary: compulsion under Mental Health Act 1983
• Data sources: case notes; PAS; Mental Health Act Office; interviews
• Statistical analysis– Intention to treat
![Page 46: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
![Page 47: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of participant groups (1)
Intervention group(n=80)
Control group(n=80)
Age in years (mean [s.d]) 39.5 (12.1) 38.6 (10.6)
Gender: male, n (%) 47 (59) 47 (59)
Ethnicity, n (%) WhiteBlackOther
29 (36)44 (55)
7 (9)
34 (42)40 (50)
6 (7)
Number of previous psychiatric admissions(median)
5 5
![Page 48: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of participant groups (2)
Intervention group(n=80)
Control group(n=80)
Days in hospital in 6 months prior to recruitment (Median)
29 42
Ever admitted as involuntary patient, n (%) 70 (87) 73 (91)
History of self harm, n (%) NoneYes, not resulting in admission or observations
Yes, resulting in admission or observationsMissing
53 (66)5 (5)
20 (25)2 (2)
45 (56)6 (7)
19 (24)10 (12)
History of violence, n (%) NoneYes, non major1
Yes, major2
Missing
48 (60)13 (19)17 (21)
2 (2)
44 (55)15 (19)12 (15)9 (11)
Compliance rating (mean[sd]) 4.8 (1.3) 4.9 (1.3)
1.Non-major incidents requiring attendance of police or on-ward seclusion or special civil-law admissions to a place of safety
2.Major: homicide, sex attacks, attempted or actual serious assault
![Page 49: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Results: Hospital admissions
Intervention group(n=80)
Control group(n=79)
Test statistic1
P
Admissions (one or more),n (%)
24 (30) 35 (44) 3.25 0.07
Bed days: whole sampleMeanMedian
320
360
1.52 0.15
1. Chi-square values from Mann-Whitney tests, except proportions admitted or on section, which were from Pearson’s chi-squared tests.
![Page 50: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Admissions under the Mental Health Act 1983
Intervention group(n=80)
Control group(n=80)
Test statistic1
P
Sections applied (one or more) n (%) 10
(13%)21
(27%)4.84 0.03
Time on section (days):MeanMedian
140
310 4.13 0.04
1. Chi-square values from Mann-Whitney tests, except proportions admitted or on section, which were from Pearson’s chi-squared tests.
![Page 51: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Self-harm and violenceIntervention
Group (n=74)
n (%)
Control Group(n=76)
n (%)
P (Fisher’s
Exact test)
Self Harm None Not resulting in admission or close observationsResulting in admission or close observations
73 (99)
1 (1)
0 (0)
69 (91)
5 (6)
2 (3)
0.09
Violence None Non major1
Major2
71 (96) 1 (1) 2 (3)
65 (85) 9 (12) 2 (3)
0.03
1.Non-major incidents requiring attendance of police or on-ward seclusion or special civil-law admissions to a place of safety
2.Major: homicide, sex attacks, attempted or actual serious assault
![Page 52: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Further findings
• 80% of patients still had their JCP at 15 months follow-up
• 45% had used their JCP during this period
![Page 53: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
JCP holders’ views, immediate follow-up
Response JCP is reflection of holder’s wishes
(%)
Pressure at crisis planning meeting
(%)
Definitely not 2 73
Probably not 2 22
Undecided 0 0
Probably yes 55 2
Definitely 41 2
![Page 54: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Further findingsPatients with JCPs reported
Immediate FU
15 months FU
Better relationship with team 46% 24%
More involved in care 76% 50%
More control over mental health problem
71% 56%
More likely to continue treatment 59% 28%
Would recommend it to others 90% 82%
![Page 55: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
55
Cost effectiveness of Joint Crisis Plans
* 78% probability that JCPs are more cost effective than standard carein reducing admissions
![Page 56: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Advance directives for patients compulsorily admitted to hospital with serious mental illness:
Randomised controlled trial(A Papageorgiou et al, 2002)
Aims To evaluate whether use of ‘advance directives’ by patients with mental illness leads to lower rates of compulsory readmission to hospital.
Subjects 156 patients admitted involuntarily
Intervention ‘Advance directive’ completed with research worker, but clinical team not significantly involved. RCT.
Outcome measures Compulsory readmissions, readmissions, days in hospital, satisfaction.
Results None significant
Conclusions Users' advance instruction had little observable impact on the outcome of care at 12 months. But, providers of care not significantly involved in advance directive
![Page 57: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
i) RCT of facilitated PADS(Swanson et al, 2006)
• Method: 469 patients with severe mental illness in two county-based mental health systems (North Carolina) randomly assigned to a facilitated advance directive (F-PAD) session or control group.
• Results: 61% of the 239 patients allocated to the F-PAD group completed legal advance instructions or authorized a proxy decisionmaker, compared with 3% of control group.
• At 1 month follow-up, F-PAD participants had significantly greater working alliance and were significantly more likely to report receiving the mental health services they believed they needed.
![Page 58: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
58
ii) Psychiatric advance directives and reduction of coercive crisis interventions
(Swanson et al, 2008)
![Page 59: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
59
ii) Psychiatric advance directives and reduction of coercive crisis interventions
(Swanson et al, 2008)
![Page 60: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
60
Pre
dict
ed P
roba
bili
ty
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6 Inpacacity, no PAD Incapacity, with PADNo incapacity, no PADNo incapacity, with PAD
Follow-up wave
12 months 24 months6 months
Figure 1. Adjusted predicted probability1 of any coercive crisis interventions at follow-up for psychiatric advance directive (PAD) completers and noncompleters, by any episode of
decisional incapacity within period
1 Estimates produced from GEE regression model (see Table 2).
ii) Psychiatric advance directives and reduction of coercive crisis interventions(Swanson et al, 2008)
![Page 61: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
61
‘Advance statements’
• Why effective?‘Manifest’ reasons – information
‘Latent’ reasons - empowerment, negotiation, collaboration, risk perception
• Generalisability?• Compatibility with Involuntary Outpatient
Treatment orders?• Coexistence of different types of ‘advance
statements’?• Further research: ‘definitive’ multicentre
RCTLondon, Birmingham, Manchester (N= 540) – in progress
![Page 62: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
62
Conclusions
• International and national variation suggest that in many, (probably most), legislatures there is scope for (substantial) reduction of ‘coercive’ measures
• Research on inpatient settings suggests that there may be scope for substantial reductions in the use of seclusion and physical restraints - but the evidence is not based on RCTs. Interventions have been complex and facility-wide. Only one study has examined an intervention aimed at reducing ‘perceived coercion’.
![Page 63: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
63
Conclusions
• An RCT of an ‘advance statement’ - the JCP - has provided evidence of reduced involuntary hospitalization. A second study, not randomised, has provided evidence of reduced coercive interventions for patients with a fPAD
![Page 64: Reducing ‘coercion’ in mental health care George Szmukler Institute of Psychiatry South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust Institute of Psychiatry](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649cb65503460f9497b60c/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
64
Some research suggestions• Describing and measuring ‘coercion’ -
– questionnaire or structured interview to assess the different levels of treatment pressure - persuasion, interpersonal leverage, inducements, threats.
May be useful to set against general measure of ‘perceived coercion’; compare services (or even clinicians)
– What should be the ‘base-line’ – moral, legal, expected course?
• Interventions to reduce coercion– Inpatient coercion -
• useful to measure changes as a result of systems interventions, but only suggestive
• RCTs of specific interventions - ‘procedural justice’; involving patients in care planning; agreeing when coercive interventions are warranted. Will need ‘cluster randomised trials’.
– Advance statements -• Test in different service settings and legislatures
• Assess value of facilitation, and who should facilitate.