Number of Seclusions in the Netherlands Higher in the 7 Years Since the End of a Nationwide Seclusion-Reduction Program

Introduction: Between 2006 and 2012 the Dutch government funded a nationwide program for reducing the use of seclusion. Although an initial first trend study showed that the reported number of seclusions declined during the program, the objective of a 10% annual decrease was not met. We wished to establish whether the decline had continued after funding ended in 2012.Method: Using quasi Poisson time series modeling, we retrospectively analyzed the nationally reported numbers of seclusion and involuntary medication between 1998 and 2019, i.e., before, during and after the end of the nationwide program, with and without correction for the number of involuntary admissions.Results: With and without correction for the number of involuntary admissions, there were more seclusions in the seven years after the nationwide program than during the nationwide program. Although the reported number of involuntary medications also increased, the rate of increase was slower after the end of the nationwide program than before.Conclusions: Rather than continuing to decrease after the end of the nationwide program, the number of seclusions rose. This may mean that interventions intended to reduce the use of seclusion within this program are not properly sustained in daily clinical care without an ongoing national program.

The Introduction of Medication-Free Mental Health Services in Norway: An Analysis of the Framing and Impact of Arguments From Different Standpoints

Introduction: Debates about coercive practices have challenged a traditional biomedical hegemony in mental health care. The perspectives of service user organizations have gained considerable ground, such as in the development of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Such changes are often contested, and might in practice be a result of (implicit) negotiation between stakeholders with different discursive positions. To improve understanding of such processes, and how discursive positions may manifest and interact, we analyzed texts published over a 10 year period related to the introduction of medication-free inpatient services in Norway.Methods: We conducted qualitative analyses of 36 policy documents related to the introduction of medication-free services and 75 opinion pieces from a subsequent debate. We examined discursive practices in these texts as expressions of what is perceived as legitimate knowledge upon which to base mental health care from the standpoints of government, user organizations and representatives of the psychiatric profession. We paid particular attention to how standpoints were framed in different discourse surrounding mental health care, and how these interacted and changed during the study period (2008–2018).Results: The analysis shows how elements from the discourse promoted by service user organizations—most notably the legitimacy of personal experiences as a legitimate source of knowledge—entered the mainstream by being incorporated into public policy. Strong reactions to this shift, firmly based in biomedical discourse, endorsed evidence-based medicine as the authoritative source of knowledge to ensure quality care, although accepting patient involvement. Involuntary medication, and how best to help those with non-response to antipsychotic medication represented a point at which discursive positions seemed irreconcilable.Conclusion: The relative authorities of different sources of knowledge remain an area of contention, and especially in determining how best to help patients who do not benefit from antipsychotics. Future non-inferiority trials of medication-free services may go some way to break this discursive deadlock.

Long-acting injectable antipsychotics and their use in court-ordered treatment: A cross-sectional survey of psychiatric pharmacists' perceptions

Introduction People with serious mental illness may be subjected to “court-ordered treatment” (COT), per the mental health statutes of their respective state. COT enforces adherence to a psychiatric treatment regimen and may involve involuntary medication administration. Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics are frequently used in this setting, although little is known about the clinical effectiveness or patterns of use of these agents in the context of COT. Because psychiatric pharmacists are medication experts, we sought to characterize their perceptions and experiences on this topic. Methods A cross-sectional, electronic, 14-item survey was administered via the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists listserv from October 9, 2018, to November 9, 2018. The survey collected demographic information, experience and use of LAI antipsychotics at each practice site, and perception of LAI antipsychotics. Results Of 843 possible respondents, 72 completed the survey, yielding an 8.5% response rate. LAIs were perceived as underused or adequately used as a whole, with a significant difference in perception favoring the opinion that LAIs are underused versus overused for those respondents who perceived an adherence benefit (P = .042). We also found that LAIs were used disproportionately in the context of COT versus oral formulations (P = .03). Discussion The use of LAIs in the context of COT has not been studied, and it may expose this vulnerable population to adverse effects from medications they are legally compelled to take. Further research on the perceptions of other interdisciplinary team members and the clinical impact of LAI use in COT is needed.

Symposium: Mental Health Law Differences and Coercive Measures Over Four Countries

In 2008, the UNHCR issued a convention on the rights of persons with disability. Since then, many countries were visited by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In a number of countries, for example Germany and the Netherlands, mental health legislation was considered unsatisfactory and either regional variations in procedures or new legislation was drafted. In Germany, the final decision after different admission procedures is always made by a judge. In the Netherlands, detention on mental health ground with involuntary admission is decided by a Governmental administrator working for the local Major. In England and Wales, it is decided by three medical/psychiatric professionals. Currently, the Netherlands is drafting a law following the main principles of the Anglo-Saxon law. In Germany, all federal states are currently adopting their mental health laws to fulfil requirements of the Constitutional Court, which decided that coercive treatment is only admissible under very strict conditions after a judge's decision. Studies show the Dutch legislation is associated with higher seclusion rates, in numbers, and duration. Moreover, recent German findings show in a recent period when involuntary medication was not admissible, inpatient violence and coercive measures increased significantly. In this symposium, we discuss the several laws and regulations of four countries (Wales, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands), now and in the near future. Each presentation of a certain countries’ regulations is followed by a description of standard figures of the country, first by an expert in the respective country's law, and consequently by an expert in nationwide or regional figures.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.