Community treatment orders and care planning: How is engagement and decision‐making enacted?

Abstract

Background In many jurisdictions worldwide, individuals with a mental illness may be forced to receive care and treatment in the community. In Australia, legislation states that such care should be driven by a care plan that is recovery‐focussed. Key components in the care planning process include engagement and decision‐making about a person's support needs and care options, with trust being an essential component of care planning relationships. Objective This study examines how these components were enacted during service care contacts for individuals on community treatment orders. Methods The study was located at two community mental health teams in South Australia. Ethnographic observations of care planning discussions between consumers, their carers and clinicians, and interviews with individuals from these groups, were conducted over 18 months. Carspecken's critical ethnography provided a rigorous means for examining the data to identify underlying cultural themes that were informing day‐to‐day care interactions. Results Care planning was not occurring as it was intended, with service culture and structures impeding the development of trusting relationships. Clinicians striving to work collaboratively with consumers had to navigate a service bias and culture that emphasized a hierarchy of ‘knowing’, with consumers assumed to have less knowledge than clinicians. Conclusions Services and clinicians can challenge prejudicial ethical injustice and counter this through testimonial justice and implementation of tools and approaches that support genuine shared decision‐making. Patient or Public Contribution This study included individuals with lived experience of mental illness, their carers and clinicians as participants and researchers.

NDIS Participants with Psychosocial Disabilities and Life-Limiting Diagnoses: A Scoping Review

“…In addition, this fear of discrimination can lead to ambivalence regarding receiving treatment and end-of-life and palliative care [ 14 , 21 , 22 , 26 , 39 , 51 , 56 ]. There is, however, across the research ample confirmation that people with SPMI are almost universally stigmatised within health and palliative care settings, resulting in substantial inequity, unmet need, reduced access to care, and poor end-of-life outcomes [ 5 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 39 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 57 , 58 , 59 ].…”

Premature termination, satisfaction with care, and shared decision-making during home treatment compared to inpatient treatment: A quasi-experimental trial

“…In addition, HT members enter the patient’s home which itself requires other modes of communication and other roles than at hospital. Therapists are thus less able or less inclined to impose their narrative of the patients’ problems on them and to act as an expert or authority within a hierarchy of “knowing” better than the service user [ 41 ]. It is likely that HT staff members are more prone to cooperative decision-making styles than inpatient staff.…”

Community-based models of care facilitating the recovery of people living with persistent and complex mental health needs: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

“…They are often excluded from participation in education, employment, recreation, and relationships, and from securing stable, safe accommodation ( 3 , 7 ). Experiences of exclusion may include poor access to health services and for some be compounded by previous negative experiences of the mental health system (including coercion, trauma, and discrimination) which may lead to reluctance to engage with treatment and support ( 8 , 9 ). Dissatisfaction with treatment and poor recovery outcomes may also be due to limited treatment options, including a lack of access to needed evidence-based psychosocial models of care ( 10 ).…”