Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun 11:10:414.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00414. eCollection 2019.

Community Treatment Orders and Supported Decision-Making

Lisa Brophy  1   2   3 , Renata Kokanovic  4 , Jacinthe Flore  4 , Bernadette McSherry  5 , Helen Herrman  6   7
Affiliations

Community Treatment Orders and Supported Decision-Making

Lisa Brophy et al. Front Psychiatry. .

Abstract

This paper presents findings from an interdisciplinary project undertaken in Victoria, Australia, investigating the barriers and facilitators to supported decision-making (SDM) for people living with diagnoses including schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and severe depression; family members supporting them; and mental health practitioners, including psychiatrists. We considered how SDM can be used to align Australian laws and practice with international human rights obligations. The project examined the experiences, views, and preferences of consumers of mental health services, including people with experiences of being on Community Treatment Orders (CTOs), in relation to enabling SDM in mental health service delivery. It also examined the perspectives of informal family members or carers and mental health practitioners. Victoria currently has high rates of use of CTOs, and the emphasis on SDM in the Mental Health Act, 2014, is proposed as one method for reducing coercion within the mental health system and working towards more recovery-oriented practice. Our findings cautiously suggest that SDM may contribute to reducing the use of CTOs, encouraging less use of coercive practices, and improving the experience of people who are subject to these orders, through greater respect for their views and preferences. Nonetheless, the participants in our study expressed an often ambivalent stance towards CTOs. In particular, the emphasis on medication as the primary treatment option and the limited communication about distressing side effects, alongside lack of choice of medication, was a primary source of concern. Fears, particularly among staff, about the risk of harm to self and others, and stigma attached to complex mental health conditions experienced by consumers and their families, represent important overarching concerns in the implementation of CTOs. Supporting the decision-making of people on CTOs, respecting their views and preferences about treatment, and moving towards reducing the use of CTOs require system-wide transformation and a significant shift in values and practice across mental health service delivery.

Keywords: autonomy; coercion; community treatment orders; psychiatry; supported decision-making.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Gooding P. Supported decision-making: a rights-based disability concept and its implications for mental health law. Psychiatr Psychol Law (2013) 20(3):431–51. 10.1080/13218719.2012.711683 - DOI
    1. Callaghan S, Ryan CJ. An evolving revolution: evaluating Australia’s compliance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Mental Health Law. UNSWLJ (2016) 39:596.
    1. Leamy M, Bird V, Le Boutillier C, Williams J, Slade M. Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Br J Psychiatry (2011) 199(6):445–52. 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.083733 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maylea CH. A rejection of involuntary treatment in mental health social work. Ethics Soc Welfare (2017) 11(4):336–52. 10.1080/17496535.2016.1246585 - DOI
    1. Brophy L, Ryan CJ, Weller P. Community treatment orders: the evidence and the ethical implications. In: Critical perspectives on coercive interventions. London, UK: Routledge (2018). p. 42–55. 10.4324/9781315158693-4 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources