Mental health legislation allows involuntary treatment under certain circumstances. It also permits patients to appeal and receive an independent review.1 Review boards aim to provide a balance between medicolegal considerations, while protecting patients’ rights and ensuring the public’s safety.2
There is little known about the consent and capacity board (CCB) decisions on findings of incapacity, involuntary admissions, or community treatment orders (CTOs). This study examines the outcomes of CCB hearings in patients with schizophrenia, who have a higher rate of involuntary admissions,3 incapacity for treatment,4 and issuance of CTOs.5
Methods
This was a retrospective chart review of all the CCB hearings held in our Schizophrenia Program, from December 2014 to December 2017, for involuntary admission, incapacity for treatment, or issuance/renewal of a CTO.
Results
A total of 122 hearings were held during the study period. The mean age of the participants was 39.7 years, and 72% were male. A total of 58.7% of CTOs and 18.8% of involuntary admissions were mandatory reviews. About 95% of participants were incapable of making treatment decisions.
An overturned decision was made in 5.35% of involuntary admissions and 4.76% of CTO hearings. None of the hearings overturned the finding of incapacity for treatment.
Reasons for decisions were available for 83.3% of hearings with an overturned outcome. Of the available reasons, 80% of revocations were due to a technicality in the process of issuing a CTO or an involuntary commitment. Of the 6 patients with overturned outcomes, 2 were lost to follow-up, 3 discontinued treatment, and 1 committed an assault upon leaving the hospital. Only 1 patient continued treatment during the 3-month follow-up period.
Discussion
This study is the first to look at the outcome of hearings for a finding of incapacity and issuance/renewal of a CTO. Available literature on the CTO focuses on effectiveness and impact on treatment outcomes but does not examine the hearings held for CTOs.6–9 As such, there is no comparison available for these findings. Moss and Redelmier10 reported 18% revocation of involuntary admissions by tribunals across all psychiatric diagnoses. Our lower rate is likely due to the difference in patient population.
Of the available reasons, 80% of rescissions were due to technical deficiencies in the process of issuance of a CTO or an involuntary commitment. While compliance with the technical aspect of the process is important, overturning such decisions solely based on a technicality puts patients at risk of experiencing additional morbidity. Furthermore, no culpability exists with the review boards, putting physicians at risk of liability when adverse outcomes occur as a result of such decisions.
About 60% of the tribunals for CTOs were mandatory reviews. Our result suggests a need for reassessment of the frequency of mandatory hearings, considering such hearings are reported as barriers to issue CTOs,11 the low rate of rescissions by tribunals, and the associated cost of holding hearings.
The limitations include inherent methodological restraints in retrospective studies. Because of the low number of overturned decisions, this study was not powered enough to assess the impact of potential variables, including incapacity, on hearing outcomes.
Naista Zhand, MD
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
naistazhand@gmail.com
David G. Attwood, MD, FRCPC
Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Schizophrenia Program, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Contributor Information
Naista Zhand, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, naistazhand@gmail.com.
David G. Attwood, Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Schizophrenia Program, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
References
- 1. World Health Organization. WHO resource book on mental health, human rights and legislation. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Ontario Consent and Capacity Board. 2016. Annual Report 2015/2016 (Fiscal Period April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016). http://www.ccboard.on.ca/scripts/english/governance/Annual-Reports.asp
- 3. Markiewicz I, Gardyńska-Ziemba E, Heitzman J. Involuntary psychiatric holds—the structure of admissions on the example of Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Warsaw. Psychiatria polska. 2016;50(1):7–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Mandarelli G, Carabellese F, Parmigiani G, et al. Treatment decision-making capacity in non-consensual psychiatric treatment: a multicentre study. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2018;27(5):492–499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Segal SP, Burgess PM. Use of community treatment orders to prevent psychiatric hospitalization. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2008;42(8):732–739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Swartz MS, Bhattacharya S, Robertson AG, et al. Involuntary outpatient commitment and the elusive pursuit of violence prevention: a view from the United States. Can J Psychiatry. 2017;62(2):102–108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Karagianis J. Doubting the doubts about the clinical effectiveness of community treatment orders. Can J Psychiatry. 2016;61(7):433–434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Hastings TJ, Gray JE. Community treatment orders disconnect. Can J Psychiatry. 2016;61(7):435–436. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Kisely S. Canadian studies on the effectiveness of community treatment orders. Can J Psychiatry. 2016;61(1):7–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Moss JH, Redelmeier DA. Outcomes following appeal and reversal of civil commitment. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2010;32(1):94–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Malatest RA. The Legislated Review of Community Treatment Orders (Final Report). Victoria: Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; 2012.