Search

© AHHA 2017.Objective The aim of the present study was to examine stakeholder perspectives on how the operation of the mental health system affects the use of involuntary community treatment orders (CTOs). Methods A qualitative study was performed, consisting of semi-structured interviews about CTO experiences with 38 purposively selected participants in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Participants included mental health consumers (n¿5), carers (n¿6), clinicians (n¿15) and members of the Mental Health Review Tribunal of NSW (n¿12). Data were analysed using established qualitative methodologies. Results Analysis of participant accounts about CTOs and their role within the mental health system identified two key themes, namely that: (1) CTOs are used to increase access to services; and (2) CTOs cannot remedy non-existent or inadequate services. Conclusion The findings of the present study indicate that deficiencies in health service structures and resourcing are a significant factor in CTO use. This raises questions about policy accountability for mental health services (both voluntary and involuntary), as well as about the usefulness of CTOs, justifications for CTO use and the legal criteria regulating CTO implementation. What is known about this topic? Following the deinstitutionalisation of psychiatric services over recent decades, community settings are increasingly the focus for the delivery of mental health services to people living with severe and persistent mental illnesses. The rates of use of involuntary treatment in Australian community settings (under CTOs) vary between state and territory jurisdictions and are high by world standards; however, the reasons for variation in rates of CTO use are not well understood. What does this paper add? This paper provides an empirical basis for a link between the politics of mental health and the uptake and usefulness of CTOs. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper makes explicit the real-world deman

Justifying involuntary psychiatric treatment on the basis of a judgment that a person lacks capacity is controversial because there are questions about the meaning and utility of the concept in this context. There are complexities to using capacity in this way, which are further amplified in the community outpatient setting compared with acute inpatient care. A richer account of capacity, its meanings, and practical applications in context, is required. This qualitative study sought to build inductively a model of capacity in the context of involuntary outpatient psychiatric treatment, based on 38 interviews with stakeholders from New South Wales, Australia. The emergent model incorporates multiple "capacities": to manage illness, for self-care, and to maintain social roles. It identifies core values that correspond with the "capabilities approach," elaborating the justifications and processes of involuntary outpatient psychiatric treatment. This proposed model of "capability" may have a range of benefits to sound and ethical practice and scrutiny of systems of involuntary outpatient treatment.

Background: There are no data about general practitioners' (GPs') involvement in involuntary psychiatric community treatment orders (CTOs). We examined stakeholder perspectives on the GP's role in this area. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted around CTO experiences with 38 participants: patients, carers, clinicians and Mental Health Review Tribunal members. Data were analysed using established qualitative methodologies. Results: Sixteen participants specifically spoke about GPs. The analysis identified four themes in their accounts: GPs as 'instruments' of CTOs; GPs as primary caregivers within a CTO; GPs as 'outsiders'; and practical challenges for GPs. Within these themes, participants identified the value of GPs in the provision of care for people living with severe and persistent mental illness, the challenges of coercive processes and the dangers of GPs being isolated from them. Discussion: GPs play an important role in the implementation of CTOs. Failure to better integrate GPs in the care of people on CTOs appears to be a significant shortcoming of its implementation.

Objective: This study aimed to derive a conceptualized model of risk in outpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment that has utility and meaning for stakeholders. Methods: Thirty-eight participants-patients, caregivers, clinicians, and legal decision makers-participated in qualitative interviews about their experiences of outpatient involuntary psychiatric treatment. Interview data were analyzed by using a general inductive method. Results: Six types of risk were identified: actual harm, social adversity, therapeutic outcome or compromised treatment, the system, interpersonal distress, and epistemic issues. There were overlaps between discourses on risk but variation in how different aspects of risk were emphasized by participant groups. Conclusions: A comprehensive model of risk contextualized to outpatient involuntary treatment is proposed. It incorporates domains of risk of harm to self or others, risk of social adversity, risk of excess distress, and risk of compromised treatment. This model may have instrumental value in the implementation and the scrutiny of risk-based mental health laws.

Objective: To describe the lived experiences of people subject to community treatment orders (CTOs) and their carers. Method: We recruited 11 participants (five mental health consumers and six carers) through consumer and carer networks in NSW, Australia, to take part in interviews about their experiences. We analysed the interview data set using established qualitative methodologies. Results: The lived experiences were characterised by 'access' concerns, 'isolation', 'loss and trauma', 'resistance and resignation' and 'vulnerability and distress'. The extent and impact of these experiences related to the severity of mental illness, the support available for people with mental illnesses and their carers, the social compromises associated with living with mental illness, and the challenges of managing the relationships necessitated by these processes. Conclusions: The lived experience of CTOs is complex: it is one of distress and profound ambivalence. The distress is an intrinsic aspect of the experience of severe mental illness, but it also emerges from communication gaps, difficulty obtaining optimal care and accessing mental health services. The ambivalence arises from an acknowledgement that while CTOs are coercive and constrain autonomy, they may also be beneficial. These findings can inform improvements to the implementation of CTOs and the consequent experiences.