DOCSLIB.ORG

Outpatient Commitment: When It Improves Patient Outcomes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Outpatient Commitment: When It Improves Patient Outcomes Outpatient commitment: When it improves patient outcomes 1 year after Virginia Tech, many states’ statutes remain ambiguous and ineff ective n April 16, 2007, Seung Hui Cho shot® andDowden killed 32 Health Media students and faculty on the Virginia Tech campus Oand wounded 25 others before killing himself. A judge had declared Cho Copyrightmentally ill inFor 2005 andpersonal placed use only him on involuntary outpatient commitment (OPC). Cho apparently never sought treatment, and no one made sure that he did (Box 1, page 26).1 Much second-guessing has occurred about whether enforcing Cho’s OPC could have prevented the Vir- ginia Tech tragedy. Most states authorize OPC, but few PSYCHIATRY make much use of OPC statues that require patients to adhere to prescribed treatment in the community. Vir- CURRENT FOR ginia was typical; an OPC statute was on the books but rarely enforced. PARKER This article discusses the evidence on OPC laws’ ef- CURTIS fectiveness and offers recommendations on how to use these tools in psychiatric practice. Marvin S. Swartz, MD Professor and head Division of social and community psychiatry Jeff rey W. Swanson, PhD Mandating needed treatment Professor OPC—also called “assisted outpatient treatment” or “mandated outpatient treatment”—is a civil court Department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences procedure whereby a judge can order a noncompli- Duke University Medical Center ant mentally ill patient to adhere to needed treat- Durham, NC ment. OPC statutes exist in 42 states and the District of Columbia, although judges use these powers erratically.2,3 Most states have set identical thresholds for inpa- tient and outpatient commitment, such as when the patient is considered dangerous to self or others or (in Current Psychiatry some statutes) so gravely impaired that he is unable to Vol. 7, No. 4 25 For mass reproduction, content licensing and permissions contact Dowden Health Media. 025_CPSY0408 025 3/14/08 3:43:35 PM Box 1 Virginia’s OPC statute: Inpatient criteria for outpatient cases irginia’s commitment laws are in review Clinicians are uncomfortable using Vbecause of the Virginia Tech shootings inpatient criteria for outpatient commitment. in April 2007. The state’s existing OPC Labeling a patient as “ill enough” to be provisions are embedded in involuntary confi ned and then recommending that he or Outpatient commitment law, which is mainly directed she be released to outpatient treatment feels commitment toward inpatients. As a result, Virginia’s law: like a liability risk. • merely permits mandated outpatient Because the legislative intent in most treatment state statutes was to set criteria and • duplicates inpatient criteria for procedures for inpatient commitment, steps “imminent dangerousness” (although for implementing outpatient commitment are the state legislature is considering often ill-defi ned. An outpatient commitment relaxing this criterion) process requires: • provides no guidance on enforcement in • notifi cation to the responsible outpatient the event of treatment nonadherence local mental health authority, clinicians, Clinical Point • provides no administrative infrastructure and local courts that the order is in place Labeling a patient to make the law work. • expectations regarding the order Virginia’s statute is typical. It lacks • steps required to renew the order, if as ‘ill enough’ to a separate threshold for outpatient indicated. be confi ned, then commitment, using the same high threshold States such as New York with fully recommending his of imminent threat to self or others that is operational outpatient commitment statutes required for inpatient commitment. have clear implementation processes. release to outpatient treatment feels like safely care for himself in the community. Enforcement. Courts typically can request a liability risk These high thresholds have dramatically that law offi cers transport patients who fail reduced inpatient commitment eligibility to comply with OPC to a treatment facil- and yet may fl ag the patient as too danger- ity. There, patients will be encouraged to ous for outpatient commitment. comply with treatment or evaluated for in- OPC orders usually cannot force medi- patient commitment.2 This relatively weak cation. Periods of initial and subsequent enforcement authority has led some to ar- commitment vary across states but not dra- gue that OPC has no teeth. matically. In North Carolina, for example, Without clearly defi ned steps for im- initial OPC may be ≤90 days, after which plementation, an outpatient commitment a hearing must be held to renew the order order can be likened to a message in a bot- for ≤180 days. Depending on individual tle—a cry for help at risk for nondelivery. states’ statutes, OPC can be used as: In the Virginia Tech case, the judge issued • an alternative to hospitalization for pa- an outpatient commitment order for Cho, tients who meet inpatient commitment but how the local clinic understood its re- criteria sponsibilities and what resources and en- • a form of conditional release for pa- forcement power it had were unclear. tients completing an involuntary inpa- tient commitment • an alternative to hospitalization for Noncontrolled studies noncompliant patients at risk for re- Evidence from noncontrolled OPC studies lapse and involuntary inpatient com- is diffi cult to interpret because of: mitment.2 • lack of comparable committed and Few states have lowered the threshold noncommitted groups to the last variant, allowing OPC use to • diffi culty in comparing treatment avert relapse and hospitalization. Newer across comparison groups statutes in New York, North Carolina, and • selection effects, whereby clinicians elsewhere have incorporated these preven- and courts select patients for a pre- Current Psychiatry 26 April 2008 tative outpatient commitment criteria.4,5 dicted good outcome.2 026_CPSY0408 026 3/13/08 4:16:52 PM Most noncontrolled studies have con- Patients ordered to OPC had fewer hos- cluded that OPC improves treatment out- pital readmissions and spent fewer days comes and decreases hospital readmission in the hospital only if they received OPC rates and lengths of stay under some cir- plus consistent community services for ≥6 cumstances.6-12 The largest study reported months.14 Patients who received this model on New York’s initial 5 years’ experience of care were: with more than 3,000 patients under its • less likely to be homeless,15 criminally OPC statute, known as “Kendra’s Law“ victimized,16 arrested if they had past (Box 2, page 28).12 Under this law—the arrests,17 or violent18 most intensively implemented OPC stat- • more likely than the control group ute in the United States—the court’s order to comply with recommended specifi es a detailed plan of medications treatment.19 and psychosocial treatment. Patients received no benefi t from OPC Most of New York’s OPC recipients <6 months—even if combined with consis- stayed in assisted outpatient treatment tent, frequent mental health services—or longer than the court-mandated 6 months OPC of any length without consistent, fre- (average 16 months). The incidence of hos- quent mental health services. Clinical Point pitalizations, homelessness, arrests, and Study limitations. Length of time on Hospitalizations, incarcerations was far lower while patients OPC could not be randomly assigned, homelessness, and participated in OPC, compared with the even though this was a key variable in previous 3 years of their lives (Table, page the intervention. If lower-risk subjects arrests were far 34). Medication adherence improved from had been selected for longer periods of lower while patients 34% before OPC to 69% after commitment, commitment, positive fi ndings could participated in OPC and engagement with treatment improved have been overstated. Legal criteria for than in the previous from 41% to 62%, respectively.12 renewing OPC also prevented us from selecting lower-risk subjects for longer 3 years of their lives exposure to court-ordered treatment. Confl icting controlled trials Higher-risk subjects appeared in prelim- Duke Mental Health Study. In the fi rst inary analyses to have received longer controlled study of OPC, the Duke Men- periods of commitment, but unknown tal Health Study (DMHS) enrolled 331 selection factors could have affected seriously mentally ill inpatients being dis- OPC duration. charged from involuntarily hospitaliza- Outpatient service intensity was not tion to court-ordered outpatient treatment controlled but varied according to clini- between 1993 and 1996. Patients with a cal need and other unknown factors. As a history of violent behavior in the previ- result, selectively providing services could ous year were placed in a nonrandomized have infl uenced outcomes, although other comparison group and remained on OPC analyses argue that this factor was not for at least 90 days. The remaining 264 pa- important.4 tients were randomly assigned to: • an experimental group that received New York. In 1994, the state legislature OPC for ≤90 days (could be renewed for established a 3-year pilot program to ≤180 days) plus consistent community men- evaluate OPC in New York City’s Bel- tal health services levue Hospital as a fi rst step toward con- • a control group that was released from sidering permanent OPC legislation.20 The OPC but received the same community randomized, controlled study compared a mental health services as the experimental court-ordered group (N=78) and a control group.13 group (N=64) during 1 year after hospital
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Guide for Implementing Assisted Outpatient Treatment
    A Guide for Implementing Assisted Outpatient Treatment JUNE 2012 Created for mental health professionals to implement assisted outpatient treatment for individuals with severe mental illness 1 “A Guide for Implementing Assisted Outpatient Treatment” © 2012 by the Treatment Advocacy Center Written by Rosanna Esposito, Jeffrey Geller and Kristina Ragosta The Treatment Advocacy Center is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating barriers to the timely and effective treatment of severe mental illness. The organization promotes laws, policies and practices for the delivery of psychiatric care and supports the development of innovative treatments for and research into the causes of severe and persistent psychiatric illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Comments on Assisted Outpatient Treatment FROM A PARTICIPANT I never knew I could feel so well. FROM A PARENT Without AOT, my son would either be in jail or dead … It alone has made a difference for him by helping him to stay on his meds. FROM A JUDGE [Assisted outpatient treatment] has provided life-saving services to individuals suffering from mental illness … and has reduced the need for action by law enforcement, medical emergency personnel, and the Courts, and lessens the trauma and anguish of family and friends. FROM A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL The clients involved in [AOT] were given the opportunity to recover at home with the support of their families and, by doing so, avoided being sent to the state hospital … The successes achieved by these individuals are inspiring; watching these people move forward in their lives was one of the most rewarding experiences of my career. For additional testimonials please see pages 53-56.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Conservatorships and Adult Guardianships and Other Options in the Care of the Mentally Ill in the United States
    The Use of Conservatorships and Adult Guardianships and Other Options in the Care of the Mentally Ill in the United States By: Robert Barton, Esq., Stacie Lau Esq., and Lydia L. Lockett, Esq.* Family Members as Guardians for Mentally Ill Patients World Guardianship Congress May 29, 2014, Arlington, VA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. PREVALENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS IN THE UNITED STATES .............................1 A. Types of Mental Illness ............................................................................................1 1. Anxiety disorders .........................................................................................2 2. Schizophrenia ...............................................................................................2 3. Dementia ......................................................................................................3 4. Eating Disorders ...........................................................................................4 5. Addiction Disorders .....................................................................................4 B. Defining Mental Illness/Incapacity ..........................................................................5 1. Daily Activities v. Communicative Ability .................................................5 2. Undue influence ...........................................................................................6 3. Isolated
    [Show full text]
  • Title 35 Public Health and Safety
    TITLE 35 - PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY CHAPTER 1 - ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE 1 - IN GENERAL 35-1-101. Local contributions; disposition. All monies paid to the state treasurer representing contributions by city councils, county commissioners, trustees of school districts, or other public agencies, for public health purposes, shall be set up and designated on the books of the state treasurer in a separate account, and shall be expended and disbursed upon warrants drawn by the state auditor against said account when the vouchers therefor have been approved by the department of health. 35-1-102. Sanitation of public institutions. It shall be the duty of the officers, managers, superintendents, proprietors and lessees of all hospitals, asylums, infirmaries, prisons, jails, schools, theaters, public places and public institutions to remedy any and all defects relating to the unsanitary condition of such institution, or institutions, as may be under their control, when such defects shall have been called to their attention in writing by the department of health. 35-1-103. Neglect or failure of officials to perform duty. Any member of the department of health, any county health officer, or any officer, superintendent, or principal of any city, town, county or institution named in this act, who shall fail or neglect to perform any of the duties herein required of them, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in the sum of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or shall be confined in the county jail for a period of not less than six (6) months, nor more than a year, or both.
    [Show full text]
  • Paternalism, Civil Commitment and Illness Politics: Assessing the Current Debate and Outlining a Future Direction
    Journal of Law and Health Volume 7 Issue 2 Article 3 1993 Paternalism, Civil Commitment and Illness Politics: Assessing the Current Debate and Outlining a Future Direction Bruce A. Arrigo University of Delaware Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/jlh Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons, and the Law and Psychology Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Bruce A. Arrigo, Paternalism, Civil Commitment and Illness Politics: Assessing the Current Debate and Outlining a Future Direction, 7 J.L. & Health 131 (1992-1993) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Law and Health by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PATERNALISM, CIVIL COMMITMENT AND ILLNESS POLITICS: ASSESSING THE CURRENT DEBATE AND OUTLINING A FUTURE DIRECTION BRUCE A. ARRIGO 1 I. INTRODUCTION .................................... 132 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ........................... 135 II. WHEN THE COURTS AND PSYCHIATRY SPEAK FOR THE CITIZEN/ O UTSIDER ........................................ 142 A. On The Meaning of Mental Illness ................ 142 B. Pitfalls in PredictingDangerousness .............. 144 C. The Gravely Disabled Criterion ................... 145 IV. CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE: PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT AND A PREFERENCE FOR LIBERTY ........................... 148 A. The Right to Refuse Antipsychotic Medications ...... 148 B. The Least Restrictive Alternative Doctrine .......... 151 C. Involuntary Outpatient Civil Commitment ......... 154 V. THE POLITICS OF ABANDONMENT ........................ 157 VI. THE THREE FORMS OF PATERNALISM ..................... 157 A . Social Control ................................ 157 B. Custody ..................................... 159 C. Treatment ................................... 160 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 161 A .
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Health Commitment Laws: a Survey of the States
    Mental Health Commitment Laws A Survey of the States February 2014 Research from the Treatment Advocacy Center 1 Mental Health Commitment Laws A Survey of the States Brian Stettin, Esq. Policy Director, Treatment Advocacy Center Jeffrey Geller, M.D. Professor of Psychiatry Member of the Board, Treatment Advocacy Center Kristina Ragosta, Esq. Director of Advocacy, Treatment Advocacy Center Kathryn Cohen, Esq. Legislative and Policy Counsel, Treatment Advocacy Center Jennay Ghowrwal, MHS Research and Communications Associate, Treatment Advocacy Center © 2014 by the Treatment Advocacy Center The Treatment Advocacy Center is a national nonprofit organization dedicated exclusively to eliminating barriers to the timely and effective treatment of severe mental illness. The organization promotes laws, policies and practices for the delivery of psychiatric care and supports the development of innovative treatments for and research into the causes of severe and persistent psychiatric illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. 2 TACReports.org/state-survey EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The tragic consequences of ignoring the needs of individuals with the most severe mental illness who are unable or unwilling to seek treatment are on vivid display nationwide: on our city streets, where an estimated quarter million people with untreated psychiatric illness roam homeless; in our jails and prisons, which now house 10 times as many people with severe mental illness than do our psychiatric hospitals; in our suicide and victimization statistics, where individuals with psychotic disorders are grossly overrepresented; and in our local news, which reports daily on violent acts committed by individuals whose families struggled vainly to get them into treatment. In the U.S., primary responsibility for treatment of this vulnerable and at-risk population falls to state and local governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Involuntary Outpatient Commitment and Related Programs of Assisted Outpatient Treatment 1
    APA Resource Document RESOURCE DOCUMENT ON INVOLUNTARY OUTPATIENT COMMITMENT AND RELATED PROGRAMS OF ASSISTED OUTPATIENT TREATMENT 1 Prepared by the Council on Psychiatry and Law: Marvin S. Swartz, M.D. Steven K Hoge, M.D. Debra A. Pinals, M.D. Eugene Lee, M.D. Li-Wen Lee, M.D. Mardoche Sidor, M.D. Tiffani Bell, M.D. Elizabeth Ford, M.D. R. Scott Johnson, M.D. Approved by the Joint Reference Committee, October 2015 "The findings, opinions, and conclusions of this report do not necessarily represent the views of the officers, trustees, or all members of the American Psychiatric Association. Views expressed are those of the authors." -- APA Operations Manual. Involuntary outpatient commitment is a form of court-ordered outpatient treatment for patients who suffer from severe mental illness and who are unlikely to adhere to treatment without such a program. It can be used as a transition from involuntary hospitalization, an alternative to involuntary hospitalization or as a preventive treatment for those who do not currently meet criteria for involuntary hospitalization. It should be used in each of these instances for patients who need treatment to prevent relapse or behaviors that are dangerous to self or others. Executive Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations In 1987, the American Psychiatric Association’s Task Force Report on Involuntary Outpatient Commitment endorsed its use under certain circumstances (1) and reiterated its endorsement in the 1999 Resource Document on Mandated Outpatient Treatment (2). During the decades since publication of the 1987 Task Force Report, outpatient commitment has received a great deal of 1 Outpatient court-ordered treatment may be referred to as ‘assisted outpatient treatment’, ‘involuntary outpatient commitment’, ‘mandated community treatment’, or ‘community treatment orders’.
    [Show full text]
  • Involuntary Commitment to Outpatient Treatment © American Psychiatric Association, All Rights Reserved Page 1 of 10
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Involuntary Outpatient Treatment . 1 Surveys of Outpatient Commitment Statutes . 2 Studies of Outpatient Commitment . 2 The Impact of Recent Statutory Changes . 4 Implications for the Future Use of Outpatient Commitment . 5 Proposed Supplement to American Psychiatric Association . 6 Guidelines for Legislation on the Psychiatric Hospitalization of Adults References . 9 26 INVOLUNTARY OUTPATIENT TREATMENT Prior to the late 1960’s, involuntary treatment of the mentally ill was INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT TO provided almost exclusively in long-term inpatient facilities. The majority of patients suffered from chronic illnesses for which there were no effective OUTPATIENT TREATMENT treatments which could permit many of them to be discharged into the community. Although the legal authority for commitment emanated from state statutes, the process, essentially dominated by clinicians, held few REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON procedural protections for patients facing commitment (1). INVOLUNTARY OUTPATIENT With the growing availability of effective treatment for chronic mental illnesses in the 1960’s, the community mental health movement and COMMITMENT advocates concerned with patients’ civil rights worked for the deinstitutionalization of as many hospitalized patients as possible (2,3). David Starrett, M.D., Chairperson Legislators were attracted to the movement by the prospect of saving Robert D. Miller, M.D. money through hospital closure and less expensive community treatment Joseph Bloom, M.D. (4). The combination of stricter commitment laws (most of which William D. Weitzel, M.D. incorporated the criterion of treatment in the least restrictive environment Robert D. Luskin, Esq., Consultant (5)) and the establishment of federally-supported community mental health centers led to a massive depopulation of the public mental hospital Publication authorized by the Board of Trustees, June 1987 system.
    [Show full text]
  • Involuntary Outpatient Commitment1 Myths and Facts
    Involuntary Outpatient Commitment1 Myths and Facts Under Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), a person with a serious mental health condition is mandated by a court to follow a specific treatment plan, usually requiring the person to take medication and sometimes directing where the person can live and what his or her daily activities must include. Proponents of IOC claim that it is effective in reducing violent behavior, incarcerations, and hospitalizations among individuals with serious mental health conditions.2 However, repeated studies have shown no evidence that mandating outpatient treatment through a court order is effective; to the limited extent that court-ordered outpatient treatment has shown improved outcomes, these outcomes appear to result from the intensive services that have been made available to participants in those clinical trials rather than from the existence of a court order mandating treatment. In addition, studies have shown that force and coercion drive people away from treatment.3 “By its very nature, outpatient commitment may undermine the treatment alliance and increase consumers’ aversion to voluntary involvement with services,” according to a study cited in “Opening Pandora’s Box: The Practical and Legal Dangers of Involuntary Outpatient Commitment,” published in Psychiatric Services.4 There is ample evidence that intensive services provided on a voluntary basis can bring tremendous improvements in outcomes such as reduced hospitalizations, reduced arrests, longer tenure in stable housing, and reduced symptoms; there is no evidence that mandating outpatient services through a court order has any additional benefit. Involuntary outpatient treatment has high costs with minimal returns, is not likely to reduce violent behavior, and there are alternatives that are more effective and efficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Involuntary Civil Commitments—Common Questions and Review of State Practices
    Washington State Institute for Public Policy 110 Fifth Avenue SE, Suite 214 ● PO Box 40999 ● Olympia, WA 98504 ● 360.586.2677 ● www.wsipp.wa.gov July 2015 Involuntary Civil Commitments: Common Questions and a Review of State Practices In 2014 and 2015, the Washington State Summary Legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to review This review examines differences in state laws and state practices regarding civil commitments procedures for involuntarily committing for involuntary mental health treatment (see individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others as a result of mental illness. An next page). For a treatment commitment to involuntary civil commitment may involve a short- occur, the court must make a determination term emergency detention, where an individual is that as a result of a mental illness, an held in temporary custody to prevent harm to individual poses a danger to self or others. themselves or others. At an initial commitment hearing, the court may issue an involuntary This review examines state variation in the treatment order that mandates hospitalization or civil commitment process—from the participation in an agreed outpatient treatment initiation of a petition to the discharge of a plan. In a limited percentage of cases, an patient. We answer common questions extended commitment may be necessary, if an related to involuntary civil commitments individual requires ongoing treatment and and address how policy and practices differ hospitalization. from state to state. We cover the legal requirements for civil commitments, discuss The Washington State Legislature directed the who may initiate a petition, and detail how Washington State Institute for Public Policy individuals are deemed eligible for (WSIPP) to investigate state practices regarding involuntary holds.
    [Show full text]
  • Involuntary Outpatient Commitment for the Chronically Mentally Ill Jillane T
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 69 | Issue 2 Article 5 1990 Involuntary Outpatient Commitment for the Chronically Mentally Ill Jillane T. Hinds University of Nebraska College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Jillane T. Hinds, Involuntary Outpatient Commitment for the Chronically Mentally Ill, 69 Neb. L. Rev. (1990) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol69/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Jillane T. Hinds* Involuntary Outpatient Commitment for the Chronically Mentally Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction: The (Perceived) Need for Outpatient Commitment .............................................. 346 II. Commitment to Outpatient Treatment .................... 355 A. Outpatient Commitment or Conditional Release? .... 355 1. Conditional Release ............................... 356 2. Outpatient Commitment .......................... 358 B. Outpatient Treatment ................................. 361 1. Treatment Planning ............................... 361 2. Review ............................................. 365 3. Right to Refuse Outpatient Treatment ............ 367 III. Enforcement: Revocation of Outpatient Commitment .... 376 A. Statutory Procedures ................................. 376 B. Constitutional Requirements
    [Show full text]
  • Criteria for Involuntary Commitment in North Carolina
    Criteria for Involuntary Commitment in North Carolina Mental Illness (Adults) an illness that so lessens the capacity of the individual to use self-control, judgment, and discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations as to make it necessary or advisable for him to be under treatment, care, supervision, guidance, or control. Mental Illness (Minors) a mental condition, other than mental retardation alone, that so impairs the youth's capacity to exercise age-adequate self-control or judgment in the conduct of his activities and social relationships that he is in need of treatment. Substance abuse the pathological use or abuse of alcohol or other drugs in a way or to a degree that produces an impairment in personal, social, or occupational functioning. Substance abuse may include a pattern of tolerance and withdrawal. Dangerous to self Within the relevant past, the individual has: 1. acted in such a way as to show that a. he would be unable, without care, supervision, and the continued assistance of others not otherwise available, to exercise self-control, judgment, and discretion in the conduct of his daily responsibilities and social relations, or to satisfy his need for nourishment, personal or medical care, shelter, or self-protection and safety; and b. there is a reasonable probability of his suffering serious physical debilitation within the near future unless adequate treatment is given. Behavior that is grossly irrational, actions that the individual is unable to control, behavior that is grossly inappropriate to the situation, or other evidence of severely impaired insight and judgment creates an inference that the individual is unable to care for himself; or 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Involuntary Outpatient Commitment1 Myths and Facts
    Involuntary Outpatient Commitment1 Myths and Facts Under Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), a person with a serious mental health condition is mandated by a court to follow a specific treatment plan, usually requiring the person to take medication and sometimes directing where the person can live and what his or her daily activities must include. Proponents of IOC claim that it is effective in reducing violent behavior, incarcerations, and hospitalizations among individuals with serious mental health conditions.2 However, repeated studies have shown no evidence that mandating outpatient treatment through a court order is effective; to the limited extent that court-ordered outpatient treatment has shown improved outcomes, these outcomes appear to result from the intensive services that have been made available to participants in those clinical trials rather than from the existence of a court order mandating treatment. In addition, studies have shown that force and coercion drive people away from treatment.3 “By its very nature, outpatient commitment may undermine the treatment alliance and increase consumers’ aversion to voluntary involvement with services,” according to a study cited in “Opening Pandora’s Box: The Practical and Legal Dangers of Involuntary Outpatient Commitment,” published in Psychiatric Services.4 There is ample evidence that intensive services provided on a voluntary basis can bring tremendous improvements in outcomes such as reduced hospitalizations, reduced arrests, longer tenure in stable housing, and reduced symptoms; there is no evidence that mandating outpatient services through a court order has any additional benefit. Involuntary outpatient treatment has high costs with minimal returns, is not likely to reduce violent behavior, and there are alternatives that are more effective and efficient.
    [Show full text]