Exploring pathways to compulsory detention in psychiatric hospital and ways to prevent repeat detentions; Service user perspectives

Design

A co-produced qualitative approach was used in this study, with a group with a range of relevant experience steering design, conduct and writing up throughout. Ethical approval to conduct the study was received from UCL Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 15249/002).

Research team

The design, conduct and analysis of the study was co-produced by Lived Experience Researchers (LERs) who are members of the FINCH Co-Production Group, and by other members of the FINCH study research team. All LERs had personal experience of using mental health services and of compulsory detention, and/or of supporting and caring for a relative or friend who had experienced compulsory detention. The FINCH Co-Production Group, consisting of LERs, carers, clinicians and researchers (some with multiple roles), was established at the start of the FINCH study, and met fortnightly through the first year of the FINCH study to plan the current study and to develop the FINCH intervention and methods for our feasibility trial. The LERs received training in conducting online interviews, analysis and obtaining verbal informed consent. A monthly lived experience reflective space provided LERs with emotional support and space to discuss the research process and emotional impact during the study.

Participants

Adults in England who had been detained under section 2 (mental health assessment) or section 3 (treatment for mental illness), of the Mental Health Act once or more in the last 5 years, were aged 18 years or over and had capacity to consent were eligible to take part in the study. Purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity regarding participants’ ethnicity, gender, age, self-reported diagnosis, geographical location, and number of times detained. We reviewed our sample during recruitment and implemented targeted strategies to ensure diversity. These included approaching community organisations working with Black and Minority Ethnic communities.

Recruitment

We contacted several community organisations and national charities that support people with mental health problems, asking them to share the study poster with people accessing their organisation. We also asked the National Survivor User Network (NSUN), a network of individuals and user-led groups with lived experience of mental ill-health, distress, or trauma based in the UK, to disseminate the study adverts. We used Twitter to disseminate an invitation to the study through personal, study and institutional accounts, and asked organisations with Twitter accounts, Facebook and Instagram accounts to disseminate the study adverts. Potential participants contacted the research team by email. Researchers then checked eligibility, provided a participant information sheet, answered questions about the study, prior to booking interviews for those eligible and interested in taking part.

Data collection

The interview topic guide was developed collaboratively by the Co-Production Group and the FINCH research team. We aimed to explore each participant’s most recent experience of being detained in hospital under section 2 or 3 of the Mental Health Act and of the support received following discharge, and to understand their views about what might have prevented them from being detained. The topic guide also asked participants’ views on the intervention being developed within the FINCH study, this further informed intervention development but is not reported in this paper. Interviews were conducted between September and December 2021. Please see Appendix A for the topic guide.

The interviews were conducted by five LERs with another FINCH researcher present to support recording and ensure the recording was securely stored in password protected university files. The interviews were conducted on Zoom or Teams videoconferencing platforms, and participants also had the option to phone in to Teams via a freephone number.

Verbal consent to take part in the interviews was recorded at the start of the interview. Socio-demographic information was collected via a secure online survey on the Opinio survey software. All interviews were recorded and were transcribed verbatim. All transcripts were then checked by the researchers and any identifying information was anonymised.

Data analysis

We used Template Analysis [25], a form of thematic analysis [26] which involves the initial development of a coding template, based on a subset of transcripts, which is then applied to further transcripts and revised and refined as more data is analysed. This approach supports analysis by a group of researchers and ensures a focus on collaboratively defining meanings and structure of themes during the process of analysis [25]. Preliminary analysis of six transcripts was undertaken by six LERs to develop themes and subthemes as a basis for the first version of the analysis framework. Further transcripts were analysed by LERs and FINCH researchers, and an analysis meeting took place to revise the themes and subthemes in the analysis framework. The analysis framework was revised where new themes were added, or similar themes or subthemes merged. The remaining transcripts were then analysed using the revised framework. A final analysis meeting was held to further review the analysis framework to merge similar themes or subthemes, or add new themes identified.

Reflexivity

The research team comprised of Lived Experience Researchers, with experience of using mental health services and of compulsory detention, and/or of supporting and caring for a relative or friend who has experienced compulsory detention, and other researchers included clinical academics and non-clinical researchers from a range of backgrounds, including a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, and an occupational therapist. The research team members are from diverse backgrounds in terms of ethnicity, age, and gender.

Individual factors increasing or reducing likelihood of being detained

This theme encompasses factors relating to the participants’ own behaviour and feelings that they saw as contributing to becoming unwell and being detained in hospital under the MHA. Participants also suggested individual strategies that might help prevent future detentions under the MHA, and ways of supporting these.

Family and Support Network

This theme describes how an individual’s family and support network could impact positively or negatively on service users’ mental state and functioning, potentially either contributing to repeat detentions or helping to stay out of hospital.

Need for improvement in Service Responses

This theme encompassed problems in both inpatient and community services that may make compulsory detentions more likely to occur, and suggestions for improvements to address these. These challenges pertained to both inpatient detention and community-level care.

Main Findings

We identified three over-arching themes, encompassing potential contributing factors to being detained at service user, family and informal support network and mental health service levels, with participants putting forward practical suggestions for addressing these. The first theme “Individual factors increasing or reducing likelihood of being detained” reports external factors such as current and past life stressors and trauma, as well as internal factors such as individuals’ attitudes to and management of their mental health and decisions not to not take medication. Establishing routines including a medication regimen and self-management plans were reported as potentially preventing detention. The second theme “Family and Support Network” identified negative relationships with family as contributing factors to detention, and conversely having and keeping in contact with a supportive family, friend and wider network was seen as keeping people well and thus preventing detention. The third theme “Improving Service Responses” pinpoints limitations of services such as a lack of collaborative care and choice, poor quality of professional support, and discriminatory attitudes by staff which contribute to detention and the necessity for these to be improved to lessen the prospect of compulsory detention. Thus service user accounts suggest a variety of types of contributing factors to compulsory detention, with a range of potential strategies for addressing them, most of which seemed to the research team’s coproduction group potentially feasible approaches. Whilst three over-arching themes reflecting different domains were identified by the coding team, there were multiple connections between them, for example not taking medication in the context of lack of continuity of support and collaborative decision-making, or of lack of family support.

Findings in the context of other studies

The focus of the current study on exploring service users views about what leads to compulsory admission is relatively novel: we are aware of little previous qualitative literature focusing on this particular question. An interview study in the UK exploring patients’ experiences of the assessment process identified lack of choice and of voice and involvement in decisions as central in these experiences [27]. Wormdahl et al. [22] carried out qualitative interviews and focus groups with patients and clinicians in Norway exploring pathways to involuntary admission: they identified a complex network of contributing factors, reflecting, as in our findings, both individual and service level difficulties, including living in deprived circumstances, discontinuing medication, and lack of responsiveness, collaboration and choice in mental health services. In a metasynthesis of the worldwide literature on involuntary admission, Akther et al, [4] found that patients’ lack of involvement in decision making and care planning at all stages in their care, and also reported that medication adherence was undermined by patients not having a good understanding of what medication was for or how it is supposed to work. Lack of choice and coercion in varying forms has been reported in other literature to be especially characteristic of involuntary admission, but to be a feature of relationships with services for many people in many settings [28, 29].

Our findings also cohere with some quantitative findings: for example, service user reports that lack of choice at various stage in the pathway to admission and of collaborative and supportive services fit with findings in the synthesis of quantitative literature [17] regarding associations between compulsory admission and poor quality community care and lack of admission alternatives. Participants in our study also suggested that collaborative planning of care, for example for crises, has potential to reduce admissions: this is in keeping with the findings from synthesising literature on prevention of compulsory admissions that interventions based on crisis planning are thus far the only approach supported by a substantial trial literature [14, 15]. A quantitative review of individual factors associated with compulsory admission [16] fits with some of the individual level factors identified by participants in our study including living in deprived circumstances, non-adherence to medication and behaviour becoming aggressive.

Participants from a wide range of ethnic groups across England took part in the study, and only one participant talked about experiencing discriminatory attitudes from staff which they perceived as contributing to them being detained under the MHA. This contrasted with findings from another qualitative study where people from a Black ethnic background in England were directly asked about racism and discrimination in the detention process, eliciting multiple reports of this [13]. Participants in our study did not report police involvement as a factor that contributed to their detention, whereas a review of quantitative studies of association found a strong association between police involvement in detention and involuntary care [16].

Strengths and limitations

The current study had several strengths, including the novelty of the research question. There was considerable involvement from people with direct relevant personal experience who were involved as LERs in the planning, conducting and analysis of this study. Forty percent of the participants in this study were also from Black/Black British ethnic groups, whereas previous qualitative research [4] has been limited by the lack of participants from the most highly represented groups of those detained under the MHA. However, there were few accounts of experiences with the police, a potentially important omission, and our process for recruitment from a variety of non-health service sources may have missed some important perspectives. However limitations include having a heterogenous sample which limits the understanding of mechanisms and pathways for specific ethnic groups or other sub-groups of participants. Many participants also had difficulties recalling what happened during the MHA assessment process, and reflected relatively little on the discussions that took place at this time or what options were discussed during the assessment, during the interviews. Interviewing participants immediately after discharge may help support participants to recall the MHA assessment experience whereas participants in our sample had been detained up to 5 years ago. Furthermore, explicit questions about the cultural appropriateness of care or experiences of discrimination were not included in the interview topic guide as our approach was to ask very broad open questions: thus we may well not have elicited all that respondents could have said about this. The use of multiple interviewers and a large analysis team with a wide range of experiences and characteristics may have enhanced the validity of themes, identified from multiple perspectives, but may also have increased variability in how interviews and analytic coding were conducted.

Clinical and Policy Implications

Participants’ views of what might contribute to and prevent compulsory detention were often practical in nature and fitted well with the published evidence, where available, supporting several potential pathways to preventing detentions and repeat detentions. At the individual level, service users’ views supported the potential value of supported self-management and of interventions to alleviate problematic social circumstances [30, 31], and the importance of clinicians taking into account advanced choices, also supported by national policy in England [32].

Our results indicated that family involvement may have value in preventing detention, but could also be experienced as unhelpful, suggesting that involvement should be patient-led where possible and include educating families and the offer of evidence-based family interventions. Interventions that aim to involve family and friends in care such as Open Dialogue, may support patient-led involvement, although evidence is not definitive currently [33]. Family involvement is among the aspects of care that are the focus of proposals in the government White Paper in England and Wales on Reforming the Mental Health Act [32]. This also proposes more detailed risk assessment with a higher threshold for compulsory detention, whereby the individual would need to present with a substantial likelihood of significant harm, and a statutory obligation for detained service users to have a detailed and collaborative care and treatment plan [32]. These are all proposals that are in keeping with our findings, although as yet law as of March 2024.

At service level, the value of talking to service users about what is likely to be helpful is reflected in clear suggestions for improvements at a range of levels, including crisis planning, supported self-management, and collaborative decision making, all of which also have quantitative evidence of effectiveness in general, with crisis plans being the only intervention with substantial evidence of effectiveness in preventing detentions [14, 15, 31]. Our findings also suggest that interventions to improve alliance with staff, service user voice and collaborative decision making at all stages are potentially valuable in preventing detentions [34]. Participants highlighted a lack of voice or collaboration in the assessment process, and this links with findings in a previous study [30] and highlights the need for initiatives to improve the MHA process. It is also important for staff to explain their role and be considerate of endings/continuity of care and of collaborative care. Discharge following a compulsory admission emerges as a crucial point, when formulation of clear care plans, education on medication and self-management, patient-led engagement with families and friends and consideration of social support and mental health support in community context may prevent further detentions under MHA. At a service system level, provision of community alternatives when in crisis [35] and focusing resources on long term, high quality and individualised community care in which service users are supported to participate in decisions and provided a broad range of help with supported self-management, medication management and social difficulties was supported by our findings as a potential means of reducing compulsory admission. A single participant referred to discrimination, but many participants felt disempowered and lacking a voice in the care, an experience to which racial inequalities may also have been relevant [36].

Further Research

Our findings supported a range of potential strategies to reduce detention, with more choice, better support and more effective care planning all approaches that were supported both by our findings and other qualitative and quantitative studies in related areas. Evidence evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to reduce detention, or assessing the impact of different community support arrangements on detentions remains very limited [14, 17], so that both trials of novel interventions to prevent detention among people at high risk and naturalistic evaluations of the relationship between community and crisis care arrangements and detentions are potentially of value. Although we ensured we had a diverse sample, including groups at high risk of compulsory detention, we did not specifically explore relationships between experiences of racism and discrimination or cultural identity and risk of detention; a more in-depth approach is likely to be beneficial.