RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: In France, a systematic control of compulsory psychiatric admissions has existed since the enactment of the law of July 5th 2011. The Court of Cassation clarified that the liberty and custody judges (JLD) cannot supersede the medical opinion described in the medical certificates. In 2015, the JLD ordered the release of 8.4 % of all compulsory psychiatric admissions. The goal was to compare the quality of medical certificates derived from judicial release based on medical grounds with non-released witnesses from the cohort of compulsory psychiatric admissions ordered in the Groupe Hospitalier Universitaire Paris Psychiatrie & Neurosciences (GHU-Paris) between November 1, 2017 and October 31, 2018. METHODS: We included as cases all the medical certificates derived from judicial release based exclusively on medical grounds from the release cohort of the GHU-Paris from November 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018, concerning the systematic control 12 days after compulsory psychiatric admissions. A witness whose compulsory care had been maintained was matched according to the same judge, place and date of hearing, mode of compulsory care and site of hospitalization. Each certificate was analyzed according to a reading grid relating to the good decisions in matters of compulsory admission and medical certificates' redaction. An overall score, based on the description of the clinical and symptomatic evolution, the level of discernment, the capacity of consent and the mode of compulsory care was awarded to each certificate. RESULTS: Seventeen release files were included in the comparative study. Globally, the clinical progression, psychiatric symptoms, level of consciousness and ability to consent did not differ in the two groups. The grade of quality of certificate was lower in case of withdrawal (2.92±1.08 VS 3.28±0.88, P=0.026). Psychiatric symptoms in "justifiable notice" (the last medical certificate prior to the judicial hearing) were less specified in case of withdrawal (58.8 % VS 94.1 %, P=0.015). Not describing any symptoms led to a 12.51 risk of withdrawal (95 % CI=[1.16; 135.19], P=0.038). Even with witness certificate, clinical progression was noticed in only 85.3 % of cases, in 89.3 % of psychiatric symptoms, in 68.0 % of level of consciousness and 80.0 % for the ability to consent. CONCLUSIONS: Judiciary releases of compulsory psychiatric admissions exclusively based on medical grounds are not arbitrarily decided by the JLD but are based on a failure to draw up medical certificates. Doctors must comply with a careful drafting of all medical certificates: description of symptoms, clinical course, level of consciousness and ability to consent. It is necessary to be attentive to judiciary releases based on medical grounds to evaluate and improve medical practices concerning the drafting of medical certificates.
Asunto(s)
Internamiento Obligatorio del Enfermo Mental , Hospitalización , Humanos , Francia , Paris , Trastorno de Personalidad AntisocialRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: In France, a systematic control of compulsory psychiatric admissions has existed since the enactment of the law of 5 July 2011. In 2015, the judge of freedoms and detention ordered the withdrawal of 8.4 % of the compulsory psychiatric admissions. The aim of the study is to describe the grounds for judiciary withdrawals of compulsory admissions ordered in the groupe hospitalier universitaire paris psychiatrie & neurosciences (GHU-Paris) between November 1, 2017 and October 31, 2018. METHODS: All of the withdrawal decisions adjudged during the mentioned period in the GHU-Paris were analysed following a specific framework. The main analysis deals with the classification of the "administrative", "medical", and "mixed" grounds. The secondary analysis looks at the fundamental facts affecting the judge of freedoms and detention's decision. RESULTS: Of the 127 orders decided by 21 judges of freedoms and detention analysed in this study, the majority were part of the systematic control of compulsory psychiatric admissions (74.8 %) and were made through a referral procedure by the director's hospital (69.3 %). The main reasons for withdrawal decisions were "mixed" (52.9 %), among which were described: failure to respect time limit (20.2 %), failure to inform the patient (11.6 %), third party's proceeding (8.7 %) and lack of documents (8.7 %). "Medical" grounds account for 31.8 % of all grounds. More precisely, failure to respect the required elements for involuntary admissions in psychiatric services was the greatest subcategory (29.5 %). "Other" grounds represented 15.8 %. No "administrative" ground was found. Judges ordered 69.3 % withdrawals within 24 hours to allow community treatment orders to be put into place. In the centre hospitalier Sainte-Anne, 70.8 % of the 24 appeals quashed the first decision by the judge of freedoms and detention. CONCLUSION: Several reasons justify withdrawals of compulsory psychiatric admissions. Scrupulously respecting procedures and drafting psychiatric certificates might decrease the number of withdrawals.
Asunto(s)
Trastornos Mentales , Neurociencias , Internamiento Obligatorio del Enfermo Mental , Libertad , Humanos , Trastornos Mentales/epidemiología , Trastornos Mentales/terapia , ParisRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: On July 5, 2011, France introduced a law permitting the involuntary admission of patients considered to be in "imminent danger" into psychiatric care without the consent of the family. This is known as "admission en soins psychiatriques pour péril imminent"(ASPPI). ASPPI authorizes all physicians to hospitalize a patient without his or her consent nor the consent of a third party. This differs from previous measures as only one certificate is needed. The law also requires involuntarily admitted patients to present themselves before a judge specialized in Liberties and Detentions (juge des libertés et des détentions), 12 days following their admission. Although there has been an increase in the number of ASPPI admissions when compared to other types of involuntary admission, patients admitted by ASPPI have been hospitalized for a shorter time than others. Some authors, however, have pointed out that decision criteria are frequently interpreted in a loose manner by physicians. This study was conducted at Sainte Anne hospital in Paris. OBJECTIVE: This study tried to determine if there were different clinical and non-clinical characteristics associated with the length of hospitalization under ASPPI. METHODS: This study analyzed all administrative files for patients admitted under ASPPI from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. These files contained the medical certificates and the court orders. The sample was split into two groups: patients hospitalized for a shorter stay and who did not present themselves to the judge and patients hospitalized for a longer stay and who did present themselves to the judge. The certificates were analyzed with a criteria grid, which includes clinical and non-clinical items. Clinical items were taken from the French High Authority of Health (Haute Autorité de Santé) 2005 recommendations. These include suicidal risk, risk to others, drug abuse, delusions or hallucinations, mood disorder and lack of selfcare. Non-clinical items include other information found in the certificate and sociodemographic information found in the administrative file. RESULTS: Among the 250 certificates analyzed, 172 (68.8%) were associated with a long stay and 78 (31.2%) with a short stay. A bivariate analysis found no significant differences between the two groups for non-clinical characteristics and for drug abuse and mood disorder. When no suicidal risk was present, the stay was short in 21% of the certificates and long for 79%. When a suicidal risk was present the stay was short in 43% of the certificates and long for 57% (P=0.0002). When a risk to others was present the stay was short for 19% of the certificates and long for 81% (P=0.003). When delusions and hallucinations were present the stay was short in 15% of the certificates and long in 85 % (P=5×10e-14). When a lack of selfcare was present the stay was short in 10% of the certificates and long for 90% (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: This study identified two types of situations linked with the length of hospitalization for patients under ASPPI. In one situation, associated with a longer stay, we found acute psychiatric disorders exhibited by more delusions, hallucinations, drug abuse, and lack of selfcare. In the second situation, associated with a shorter stay, this study found more episodic situations with suicidal risk. This study suggests that some involuntary admissions could be avoided if physicians could monitor episodic situations in appropriate structures. Moreover the criteria grid we used in this study should be validated to further analyze the quality of the certificates in order to lead to more precise recommendations.