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

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.

Similar articles

Sugiura K, Pertega E, Holmberg C. Sugiura K, et al. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2020 Nov-Dec;73:101645. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101645. Epub 2020 Nov 24. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2020. PMID: 33246221

Hustoft K, Larsen TK, Brønnick K, Joa I, Johannessen JO, Ruud T. Hustoft K, et al. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2018 Jan-Feb;56:27-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.10.011. Epub 2017 Nov 28. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2018. PMID: 29701596

Joa I, Hustoft K, Anda LG, Brønnick K, Nielssen O, Johannessen JO, Langeveld JH. Joa I, et al. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2017 Nov-Dec;55:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.09.002. Epub 2017 Oct 12. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2017. PMID: 29157507

Kallert TW. Kallert TW. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2008 Sep;21(5):485-9. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e328305e49f. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2008. PMID: 18650692 Review.

Israelsson M, Nordlöf K, Gerdner A. Israelsson M, et al. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2015 Aug 28;10:34. doi: 10.1186/s13011-015-0029-y. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2015. PMID: 26316067 Free PMC article. Review.

Cited by

Hofstad T, Nyttingnes O, Markussen S, Johnsen E, Killackey E, McDaid D, Rinaldi M, Dean K, Brinchmann B, Douglas K, Gröning L, Bjørkly S, Palmstierna T, Strømme MF, Blindheim A, Rugkåsa J, Hofmann BM, Pedersen R, Widding-Havneraas T, Rypdal K, Mykletun A. Hofstad T, et al. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2023 Jul 8;33(1):e1980. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1980. Online ahead of print. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2023. PMID: 37421245 Free PMC article.

Ma HJ, Zheng YC, Shao Y, Xie B. Ma HJ, et al. BMC Psychiatry. 2022 Dec 21;22(1):818. doi: 10.1186/s12888-022-04480-3. BMC Psychiatry. 2022. PMID: 36544107 Free PMC article.

Hofstad T, Husum TL, Rugkåsa J, Hofmann BM. Hofstad T, et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Dec 10;22(1):1507. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08798-2. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022. PMID: 36496384 Free PMC article.

Takimoto Y. Takimoto Y. J Eat Disord. 2022 Nov 21;10(1):176. doi: 10.1186/s40337-022-00703-w. J Eat Disord. 2022. PMID: 36415005 Free PMC article.

Lassemo E, Myklebust LH. Lassemo E, et al. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2021 Dec;30(4):e1889. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1889. Epub 2021 Jul 23. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2021. PMID: 34297449 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Le Grand J. Motivation, agency, and public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
    1. Prinsen EJD, van Delden JJM. Can we justify eliminating coercive measures in psychiatry? J Med Ethics. 2009;35:69–73. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.022780. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Welsh S, Deahl MP. Modern psychiatric ethics. Lancet. 2002;359:253–255. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07452-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.087841. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kogstad RE. Protecting mental health clients’ dignity – the importance of legal control. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2009;32:383–391. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.09.008. - DOI - PubMed