Advertisement

Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

, Volume 47, Issue 7, pp 1169–1179 | Cite as

Psychiatric patients’ views on why their involuntary hospitalisation was right or wrong: a qualitative study

  • Christina KatsakouEmail author
  • Diana Rose
  • Tim Amos
  • Len Bowers
  • Rosemarie McCabe
  • Danielle Oliver
  • Til Wykes
  • Stefan Priebe
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

To explore involuntary patients’ retrospective views on why their hospitalisation was right or wrong.

Methods

Involuntary patients were recruited from 22 hospitals in England and interviewed in-depth. The study drew on grounded theory and thematic analysis.

Results

Most of the patients felt mentally unwell before admission and out of control during their treatment. Despite these common experiences, three groups of patients with distinct views on their involuntary hospitalisation were identified: those who believed that it was right, those who thought it was wrong and those with ambivalent views. Those with retrospectively positive views believed that hospitalisation ensured that they received treatment, averted further harm and offered them the opportunity to recover in a safe place. They felt that coercion was necessary, as they could not recognise that they needed help when acutely unwell. Those who believed that involuntary admission was wrong thought that their problems could have been managed through less coercive interventions, and experienced hospitalisation as an unjust infringement of their autonomy, posing a permanent threat to their independence. Patients with ambivalent views believed that they needed acute treatment and that hospitalisation averted further harm. Nonetheless, they thought that their problems might have been managed through less coercive community interventions or a shorter voluntary hospitalisation.

Conclusions

The study illustrates why some patients view their involuntary hospitalisation positively, whereas others believe it was wrong. This knowledge could inform the development of interventions to improve patients’ views and treatment experiences.

Keywords

Commitment of mentally ill Coercion Patient admission Inpatients Qualitative research 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by a Grant from the Department of Health, United Kingdom, Commission number 0230072. The researchers were independent from the funders and the views expressed in the publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health. The funding source had no role in the study design and conduct of the study, data collection, management, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. Til Wykes and Diana Rose acknowledge financial support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health award to the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London. We are grateful to the Mental Health Research Network for supporting the project, and to all the interviewed patients and staff of the participating hospitals. We also thank all the researchers involved in data collection.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Høyer G (2000) On the justification for civil commitment. Acta Psychiatr Scand 399:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck JC, Golowka EA (1988) A study of enforced treatment in relation to Stone’s “thank you” theory. Behav Sci Law 6:559–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Katsakou C, Priebe S (2006) Outcomes of involuntary hospital admission- a review. Acta Psychiatr Scand 114:232–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Priebe S, Katsakou C, Amos T et al (2009) Patients’ views and readmissions 1 year after involuntary hospitalisation. Br J Psychiatry 194:49–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Donogue B, Lyne J, Hill M, Larkin C, Feeney L, O’Callaghan E (2010) Involuntary admission from the patients’ perspective. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 45:631–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Swartz MS, Swanson J, Hannon M (2003) Does fear of coercion keep people away from mental health treatment? Behav Sci Law 21:459–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katsakou C, Priebe S (2007) Patient’s experiences of involuntary hospital admission and treatment: a review of qualitative studies. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc 16:172–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boyatzis RE (1998) Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Katsakou C, Bowers L, Amos T et al (2010) Coercion and treatment satisfaction among involuntary patients. Psychiatr Serv 61:286–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Priebe S, Katsakou C, Yeeles K, Amos T, Morriss R, Wang D, Wykes T (2010) Predictors of clinical and social outcomes following involuntary hospital admission: a prospective observational study. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. doi: 10.1007/s00406-010-0179-x
  12. 12.
    Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones IR, Ahmed N, Catty J et al (2009) Illness careers and continuity of care in mental health services: a qualitative study of service users and carers. Soc Sci Med 69:632–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quirk A, Lelliott P, Seale C (2004) Service users’ strategies for managing risk in the volatile environment of an acute psychiatric ward. Soc Sci Med 59:2573–2583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katsakou C, Marougka S, Garabette J, Rost F, Yeeles K (2011) Why do some voluntary patients feel coerced into hospitalisation? A mixed-methods study. Psychiatry Res 187:275–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bennett NS, Lidz CW, Monahan J et al (1993) Inclusion, motivation and good faith: the morality of coercion in mental hospital admission. Behav Sci Law 11:295–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones SL, Mason T (2002) Quality of treatment following police detention of mentally disordered offenders. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 9:73–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Olofsson B, Jacobsson L (2001) A plea for respect: involuntary hospitalized psychiatric patients’ narratives about being subjected to coercion. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 8:357–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Olofsson B, Norberg A (2001) Experiences of coercion in psychiatric care as narrated by patients, nurses and physicians. J Adv Nurs 33:89–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quirk A, Lelliott P, Audini B, Buston K (2003) Non-clinical and extra-legal influences on decisions about compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital. J Ment Health 12:119–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johansson IM, Lundman B (2002) Patients’ experiences of involuntary psychiatric care: good opportunities and great losses. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 9:639–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sibitz I, Amering M, Gossler R, Unger A, Katschnig H (2007) Patients’ perspectives on what works in psychoeducational groups for schizophrenia: a qualitative study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 42:909–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Amering M, Stastny P, Hopper K (2005) Psychiatric advance directives: qualitative study of informed deliberations by mental health service users. Br J Psychiatry 186:247–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seale C, Chaplin R, Lelliott P, Quirk A (2006) Sharing decisions in consultations involving anti-psychotic medication: a qualitative study of psychiatrists’ experiences. Soc Sci Med 62:2861–2873PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pontin E, Peters S, Lobban F, Rogers A, Morriss RK (2009) Enhanced relapse prevention for bipolar disorder: a qualitative investigation of value perceived for service users and care coordinators. Implement Sci 4:4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cooke MA, Peters ER, Kuipers E, Kumari V (2005) Disease, deficit or denial? Models of poor insight in psychosis. Acta Psychiatr Scand 112:4–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dinos S, Stevens S, Serfaty M, Weich S, King M (2004) Stigma the feelings and experiences of 46 people with mental illness. Br J Psychiatry 184:176–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Turton P, Demetriou A, Boland W et al (2011) One size fits all: or horse fro courses? Recovery-based care in specialist mental health services. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 46:127–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Swartz MS, Wagner HR, Swanson JW, Elbogen EB (2004) Consumers’ perceptions of the fairness and effectiveness of mandated community treatment and related pressures. Psychiatr Serv 55:780–785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Canvin K, Bartlett A, Pinfold V (2005) Acceptability of compulsory powers in the community: the ethical considerations of mental health service users on supervised discharge and guardianship. J Med Ethics 31:457–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Broker M, Rohricht F, Priebe S (1995) Initial assessment of hospital treatment by patients with paranoid schizophrenia: a predictor of outcome. Psychiatry Res 58:77–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Richardson M, Katsakou C, Priebe S (2010) Association of treatment satisfaction and psychopathological sub-syndromes among involuntary patients with psychotic disorders. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. doi: 10.1007/s00127-010-0236-9
  33. 33.
    Luckstead A, Coursey RD (1995) Consumer perceptions of pressure and force in psychiatric treatments. Psychiatr Serv 46:146–152Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    McCabe R, Heath C, Burns T, Priebe S (2002) Engagement of patients with psychosis in the consultation: conversation analytic study. BMJ 325:1148–1151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Seale C, Chaplin R, Lelliott P, Quirk A (2007) Antipsychotic medication, sedation and mental clouding: an observational study of psychiatric consultations. Soc Sci Med 65:698–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bowers L, Nijman H, Simpson A, Jones J (2011) The relationship between leadership, teamworking, structure, burnout and attitude to patients on acute psychiatric wards. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 46:143–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McKenna BG, Simpson A, Coverdale JH et al (2001) An analysis of procedural justice during psychiatric hospital admission. Int J Law Psychiatry 24:573–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lidz CW, Mulvey EP, Hoge SK et al (1998) Factual sources of psychiatric patients’ perceptions of coercion in the hospital admission process. Am J Psychiatry 155:1254–1260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hiday VA, Swartz MS, Swanson J et al (1997) Patient perceptions of coercion in mental hospital admission. Int J Law Psychiatry 20:227–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lidz CW, Hoge SK, Gardner W et al (1995) Perceived coercion in mental hospital admission. Pressures and process. Arch Gen Psychiatry 52:1034–1039PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jankovic J, Richards F, Priebe S (2010) Advance statements in adult mental health. Adv Psychiatr Treat 16:448–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Katsakou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Diana Rose
    • 2
  • Tim Amos
    • 3
  • Len Bowers
    • 2
  • Rosemarie McCabe
    • 1
  • Danielle Oliver
    • 4
  • Til Wykes
    • 2
  • Stefan Priebe
    • 1
  1. 1.Unit for Social & Community Psychiatry, Barts and the London School of MedicineQueen Mary University of London, Newham Centre for Mental HealthLondonUK
  2. 2.Institute of PsychiatryKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Academic Unit of PsychiatryUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  4. 4.Lambeth Primary Care TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations