Several countries are currently revising or have already revised their mental health laws to align with the global movement to reduce the use of coercive care. No government has yet fully implemented the recommendation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) to eliminate the use of coercion in mental healthcare. Consequently, the international field of mental health law and policy is in a degree of flux.

To describe the rationale, development and protocol for a project that will map and examine how mental health laws, policies and service capacity across European countries relate to the use of coercive measures, including involuntary admissions and treatment, restraints and seclusion. This will help to better understand the current situation and explore future directions of policies regarding coercive care.

The project is being carried out under the purview of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) action network, entitled FOSTREN (Fostering and Strengthening Approaches to Reducing Coercion in European Mental Health Services). A multidisciplinary group of experts developed a comprehensive survey assessing mental health laws, policies and service frameworks, based on World Health Organization and UNCRPD recommendations. The survey was piloted in three countries, revised and disseminated to 30 FOSTREN country representatives. The survey will provide data for three strands of work on legislation, policies and service-level context. A comprehensive evaluation will be conducted, drawing on findings from all work packages.

The project could inform the development of strategies, interventions and legislation to address gaps and promote compliance with international standards.

No significant relationships.

In 2017, a capacity-based criterion was added to the Norwegian Mental Health Act, stating that those with capacity to consent to treatment cannot be subjected to involuntary care unless there is risk to themselves or others. This was expected to reduce incidence and prevalence rates, and the duration of episodes of involuntary care, in particular regarding community treatment orders (CTOs).

The aim was to investigate whether the capacity-based criterion had the expected impact on the use of CTOs.

This retrospective case register study included two catchment areas serving 16% of the Norwegian population (aged ≥18). In total, 760 patients subject to 921 CTOs between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019 were included to compare the use of CTOs 2 years before and 2 years after the legal reform.

CTO incidence rates and duration did not change after the reform, whereas prevalence rates were significantly reduced. This was explained by a sharp increase in termination of CTOs in the year of the reform, after which it reduced and settled on a slightly higher leven than before the reform. We found an unexpected significant increase in the use of involuntary treatment orders for patients on CTOs after the reform.

The expected impact on CTO use of introducing a capacity-based criterion in the Norwegian Mental Health Act was not confirmed by our study. Given the existing challenges related to defining and assessing decision-making capacity, studies examining the validity of capacity assessments and their impact on the use of coercion in clinical practice are urgently needed.

In the mental health area, the most problematic issues are the involuntary placement of the mentally ill in closed institutions, both under civil and criminal proceedings, and their involuntary treatment. Despite the international efforts of harmonizing measures, the nature and practice of the services still vary from country to country.

To analyse involuntary placement of persons with mental disorders in closed institutions under civil and criminal proceedings, which include both psychiatric hospitals and care institutions.

Review and analysis of regulations and practice of involuntary placement of a person with a mental disorder in a closed institution in the context of Estonian, Finnish, Russian, and English law, health care and social system.

Estonian, Finnish, Russian, and English law distinguish between criminal and civil proceedings regarding involuntary placement of a mentally ill person in a closed institution. However, specifics of the proceedings are different among the countries, e.g. judicial involvement, and deadlines. Also, the provision of forensic mental health services differ among these countries, e.g. in Estonia offenders and non-offenders are kept separately, whilst in England and Russia patients are not distinguished so strictly.

The distinction between involuntary placement of the mentally ill in criminal and civil proceedings is distinguished primarily for the reason that in one case the risk arising from the person is directly realized by committing an unlawful act and in the other case the risk arising from the person is directed at themselves or is not qualified as an unlawful act.

Given the effectiveness and overall safety in several psychiatry conditions, electroconvulsive therapy remains a widely used procedure in current medical practice. Informed consent is still a requirement for the use of ECT both in voluntary and compulsory treatment; however, since severe mental illness can affect decision-making capacity and insight of the need for treatment, this requirement often constitutes an obstacle to its use. In addition, stigma around ECT still contributes to treatment refusal.

To summarize the most recent evidence published about ECT and discuss the ethical and legal implications of its use, enlightened by the empirical description of a clinical vignette.

Review of literature on the ethical and legal issues involving the ECT use in patients on compulsory treatment, considering the efficacy, risks, the mental health legislation in Portugal, and several international directives.

Informed consent is the basic tenet in the contemporary physician-patient relationship. In principle, ECT can only be administered to patients who prior consent to the treatment. In contemporary practice, providing the best medical assistance and respecting the patient’s autonomy are two fundamental principles. However, we often face an ethical dilemma, when severely ill patients, whose insight, the ability for self-determination and decision-making capacity may be impaired, refuse a potential beneficial treatment as ECT.

The use of ECT in severe mental illness is still hampered by legal and ethical constraints. A future revision of the law could protect patients from being excluded from a treatment that may change the course of the disease.

No significant relationships.

Understanding patient experiences of detention under mental health legislation is crucial to efforts to reform policy and practice.

To synthesise qualitative evidence on patients' experiences of assessment and detention under mental health legislation.

Five bibliographic databases were searched, supplemented by reference list screening and citation tracking. Studies were included if they reported on patient experiences of assessment or detention under mental health legislation; reported on patients aged 18 years or older; collected data using qualitative methods; and were reported in peer-reviewed journals. Findings were analysed and synthesised using thematic synthesis.

The review included 56 papers. Themes were generally consistent across studies and related to information and involvement in care, the environment and relationships with staff, as well as the impact of detention on feelings of self-worth and emotional state. The emotional impact of detention and views of its appropriateness varied, but a frequent theme was fear and distress during detention, including in relation to the use of force and restraint. Where staff were perceived as striving to form caring and collaborative relationships with patients despite the coercive nature of treatment, and when clear information was delivered, the negative impact of involuntary care seemed to be reduced.

Findings suggest that involuntary in-patient care is often frightening and distressing, but certain factors were identified that can help reduce negative experiences. Coproduction models may be fruitful in developing new ways of working on in-patient wards that provide more voice to patients and staff, and physical and social environments that are more conducive to recovery.

None.

Italy pioneered deinstitutionalisation over the past 60 years and enforced a famous mental health (MH) reform law in 1978. Deinstitutionalisation has been completed with the very closure of all psychiatric hospitals over two decades.

After 40 years of implementation, this article presents the main achievements and challenges of the Italian MH reform law, including its long-term effect and impact in Italy and abroad.

The Legislation of 1978 was based on the discovery of rights as a key tool in mental healthcare. At the climax of crisis of psychiatric hospitals as total institutions in this country, through the new community-based system of care, it has fostered the lowest rate of involuntary care and gave back the full citizenship to people with MH disorders. This act was also part of a social movement for expanding civil and social rights, and a promise of a true paradigm shift not only in psychiatry, but also in the way of providing an adequate welfare community for all citizens. According to the WHO, the Italian city of Trieste, together with its region, is a practical example of how the Italian movement achieved deinstitutionalisation, intended as a complex process resulting in the gradual relocation of the economic and human resources and subsequent creation of 24 h services together with the development of social inclusion programmes.

Even if the great principles of the Italian reform law were anticipatory (e.g., the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities – CRPD), the law application has been poorly provided with resources and did not follow those avant-garde experiences as models. Limitations are evident today especially at the organisational levels, such as services capable to take up the challenge and transforming the field, left free from the imprint of total institutions. These endemic critical aspects concerning to implementation policies, together with the financial crisis of the Italian healthcare system, must be taken into consideration for a re-launch of this historical law. The rights-based approach opened by the Law 180 should now take into consideration the new legal situation caused by the CRPD worldwide in the area of individuals’ human rights, especially about the issue of legal capacity and related involuntary care.

To describe similarities and differences in mental health legislation between five jurisdictions: the Republic of Ireland, England and Wales, Scotland, Ontario (Canada), and Victoria (Australia).

An in-depth examination was undertaken focussing on the process of involuntary admission, review of Admission Orders and the legal processes in relation to treatment in the absence of patient consent in each of the five jurisdictions of interest.

All jurisdictions permit the detention of a patient if they have a mental disorder although the definition of mental disorder varies between jurisdictions. Several additional differences exist between the five jurisdictions, including the duration of admission prior to independent review of involuntary detention and the role of supported decision making.

Across the five jurisdictions examined, largely similar procedures for admission, detention and treatment of involuntary patients are employed, reflecting adherence with international standards and incorporation of human rights-based principles. Differences exist in relation to the criteria to define mental disorder, the occurrence of automatic review hearings in a timely fashion after a patient is involuntarily admitted and the role for supported decision making under mental health legislation.