Involuntary Inpatient Commitment in the Context of Mental Health Recovery

Mental health recovery competencies for mental health workers: A Delphi study

“…Many people have argued that the iatrogenic effects of routine psychiatric care and treatment are impediments to mental health recovery (Coleman, 1999;Mancini, Hardiman, & Lawson, 2005;Read, Mosher, & Bentall, 2004). Indeed some have argued that routine practices such as standardization of services (Lakeman, 2004), involuntary treatment (Henwood, 2008) and seclusion and restraint (Ashcraft & Anthony, 2008) may be incompatible with ideas of mental health recovery. Others (Oades et al, 2005) have attempted to identify particular ''evidence-based'' practices that are congruent with a mental health recovery ethos or orientation.…”

Understanding U.S. debates surrounding standards in involuntary inpatient psychiatric commitment through the Maryland experience

“…Social workers working with clients with SMI should consider the use of early interventions that promote autonomy, such as advanced directives (Scheyett et al, 2009). Overall, mental health professionals in general should be active in the involuntary commitment process in order to promote a recovery perspective whenever possible, even if this means refusal of treatment (Henwood, 2008) Prior studies indicate that individuals' experience of coercive treatment may influence outcomes and future help-seeking (Bonsack & Borgeat, 2005), a key component in these debates. Individuals who are committed involuntarily tend to view therapeutic relationships as having less interpersonal trust and alliance between the individual and the treatment provider (Donnelly, Lynch, Mohan, & Kennedy, 2011) and lowered perceptions of improvement and increased feelings of coercion when compared to those hospitalized voluntarily (Bonsack & Borgeat, 2005;McKenna, Simpson, Coverdale, & Laidlaw, 2001).…”

“…Two of these principles, that "[r]ecovery is selfdriven" (p. 4) and "[r]ecovery is based on respect" (p. 6), as well as the language of the guidelines, indicate that recovery is initiated, driven, and maintained by individuals who experience mental disorders. This shift toward a recovery model may magnify the conflict mental health professionals experience with regard to balancing treatment and safety with client autonomy (Henwood, 2008). Although the principles speak to the role of allies, peers, and community, there is nothing in the document to suggest coercion or even any potential tensions between the individual and community, or how to resolve possible internal conflict among the principles.…”

Examining a Digital Health Approach for Advancing Schizophrenia Illness Self-Management and Provider Engagement: Protocol for a Feasibility Trial

“…Within these systems, the primary point of engagement—interactions and relationships with health care providers—is challenged. In inpatient units, patients are frequently dissatisfied with custodial approaches to care [ 7 , 8 ], and in outpatient settings, the frequency and nature of contacts with providers are often inadequate. Common concerns include a lack of shared-decision making in treatment, limited support in illness self-management, and insufficient time with providers [ 5 , 9 , 10 ].…”