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
. 2024 Nov 5;24(1):1346.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11787-2.

Compulsory treatment at home: an interview study exploring the experiences of an early group of patients, relatives and mental-health workers

D A de Waardt  1 , I C de Jong  2 , M Lubben  3   4 , I Haakma  4 , C L Mulder  5   6 , G A M Widdershoven  2
Affiliations

Compulsory treatment at home: an interview study exploring the experiences of an early group of patients, relatives and mental-health workers

D A de Waardt et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: When introduced in 2020, the Netherlands' Compulsory Mental Healthcare Act included provisions for compulsory community treatment (CCT) and compulsory treatment in patients' homes (CTH). Although CCT has been incorporated into mental health care in many countries, its effectiveness is debated. We know of no other countries in which CTH has been adopted. The aim of this study is to evaluate how an early group of participants experienced CTH. They were drawn from three stakeholder groups: patients, relatives and mental-health workers.

Methods: In total, 17 open interviews were conducted with six patients, five relatives and six mental-health workers. All had experience with CTH. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews.

Results: Five themes were identified: 1). Reasons for applying for a court order with options for CTH. The reasons included preventing harm, avoiding hospitalization, and providing a safety net. 2.) Participants' experiences with CTH in practice. The four most noteworthy experiences were related to the process of applying for a court order; compulsory home visits and the compulsory use of medication; the involvement of relatives during treatment; and the influence of CTH on the relationship between patients and relatives. 3.) The advantages and disadvantages of CTH. The most important advantages were avoiding hospitalization; improving medication adherence; facilitating easy access to care; early signaling of deterioration; early intervention; and regained autonomy. The most important disadvantages were restricted autonomy; fewer options for monitoring compared to hospitalization; and problems regarding control of patient behavior. 4.) Participants' preferences. All preferred CTH to hospitalization. 5.) Participants' suggestions for improving CTH. These included the need not only to provide patients with better information, but also to improve the involvement of relatives during treatment.

Conclusion: The interviewees found that CTH might help to avoid hospitalization by providing stakeholders with more options for arranging effective care at home. Although this suggests that initial experiences of CTH under the new Dutch mental health law were positive, it is still uncertain whether CTH as currently implemented really differs from CCT.

Keywords: Compulsory Community Treatment; Compulsory Treatment in patients' Homes; Compulsory mental health care; Mental health legislation; Stakeholders' experience.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Themes and subthemes
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Rugkåsa J, Burns T. Community treatment orders: are they useful? BJPsych Adv. 2017;23(4):222–30.
    1. Barnett P, Matthews H, Lloyd-Evans B, Mackay E, Pilling S, Johnson S. Compulsory community treatment to reduce readmission to hospital and increase engagement with community care in people with mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018;5(12):1013–22. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kisely S, Hall K. An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled evidence for the effectiveness of community treatment orders. Can J Psychiatry Revue canadienne de psychiatrie. 2014;59(10):561–4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maughan D, Molodynski A, Rugkåsa J, Burns T. A systematic review of the effect of community treatment orders on service use. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014;49:651–63. - PubMed
    1. Corring D, O’Reilly R, Sommerdyk C, Russell E. The lived experience of community treatment orders (CTOs) from three perspectives: A constant comparative analysis of the results of three systematic reviews of published qualitative research. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019;66(Journal Article):101453. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources