Ketil Røtvold1, Rolf Wynn2. 1. a Ketil Røtvold, Division of Mental Health and Addictions, University Hospital of North Norway , Tromsø , Norway , and Department of Clinical Medicine , UiT, Arctic University of Norway , Tromsø , Norway. 2. b Rolf Wynn, Division of Mental Health and Addictions, University Hospital of North Norway , Tromsø , Norway , and Department of Clinical Medicine , UiT, Arctic University of Norway , Tromsø , Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Norway, GPs may decide to refer patients to involuntary psychiatric treatment. Internationally, there has been a discussion regarding criteria for involuntary admission. In Norway and in other countries where the treatment criterion is still used, some have suggested its removal. AIMS: To examine which legal criteria GPs used to refer patients to involuntary admission, whether they had thought about using a different criterion, and on which information they based their decision. METHODS: A total of 74 doctors who had referred patients to involuntary admission at one major Norwegian psychiatric hospital participated in semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: In total, 38% (28) had applied the danger criterion only and 23% (17) had applied the treatment criterion only; 32% (24) had applied both criteria, while 7% (5) did not answer this question; 74% (55) said that they could not have chosen a different criterion; 45% (33) had based their decision on events/behaviour prior to and during the consultation, 43% (32) on events prior to the consultation only, and 8% (6) on information obtained during the consultation only; 4% (3) did not answer this question. None had used tools to aid in the assessment of danger. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The danger criterion was frequently used by the referring GPs. It is unclear how a removal of the treatment criterion from Norwegian legislation might impact clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: While the danger criterion was applied by a majority, the treatment criterion was also chosen by many and was of importance to the doctors' reasoning regarding referrals to involuntary admission. Most thought they could not have chosen a different criterion.
BACKGROUND: In Norway, GPs may decide to refer patients to involuntary psychiatric treatment. Internationally, there has been a discussion regarding criteria for involuntary admission. In Norway and in other countries where the treatment criterion is still used, some have suggested its removal. AIMS: To examine which legal criteria GPs used to refer patients to involuntary admission, whether they had thought about using a different criterion, and on which information they based their decision. METHODS: A total of 74 doctors who had referred patients to involuntary admission at one major Norwegian psychiatric hospital participated in semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: In total, 38% (28) had applied the danger criterion only and 23% (17) had applied the treatment criterion only; 32% (24) had applied both criteria, while 7% (5) did not answer this question; 74% (55) said that they could not have chosen a different criterion; 45% (33) had based their decision on events/behaviour prior to and during the consultation, 43% (32) on events prior to the consultation only, and 8% (6) on information obtained during the consultation only; 4% (3) did not answer this question. None had used tools to aid in the assessment of danger. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The danger criterion was frequently used by the referring GPs. It is unclear how a removal of the treatment criterion from Norwegian legislation might impact clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: While the danger criterion was applied by a majority, the treatment criterion was also chosen by many and was of importance to the doctors' reasoning regarding referrals to involuntary admission. Most thought they could not have chosen a different criterion.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dangerousness; General practitioners; Health services; Involuntary admission; Psychiatry