Abstract
Background: Mental health legislation in Ontario, Canada, permits inpatients to refuse treatment while appealing their incapacity finding to the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB). Lack of treatment during this period poses safety concerns, as inpatients who remain untreated are at higher risk of engaging in violent behavior. The present study explored the relationship between non-treatment and violence among forensic and civil inpatients awaiting their CCB hearing at the largest psychiatric hospital in Canada. Methods: We investigated the electronic health records of 285 inpatients whose CCB applications were heard between 2014 and 2016 to better understand violent outcomes among inpatients and determine whether application timelines differed between forensic and civil inpatients. Results: Three key findings were observed. First, forensic inpatients had more episodes of violence requiring seclusion and restraint during the application timeline compared with civil inpatients. Second, forensic inpatients waited longer than civil inpatients for their appeal to be heard at the CCB. Finally, unwillingness to accept PRN medications and comorbid psychiatric conditions were potent risk factors for violence among all inpatients during the appeals process. Conclusions: Compared with civil inpatients, forensic inpatients waited longer for CCB appeals. They also scored higher on one measure of violent behavior. These findings provide context for the ongoing challenge of clinicians tasked with providing care for inpatients appealing findings of incapacity under mental health legislation in Ontario. We argue for a more streamlined approach to processing appeals for both forensic and civil patients. Better standardization or even revision of current mental health legislation may help eliminate clinical disparities between patient groups.
Highlights
The interaction between the criminal justice system and psychiatric services has demonstrated a tenuous relationship between balancing individual rights and public safety
We hypothesized that patients with comorbid psychiatric conditions would wait the longest for their appeals, as this presentation may influence the complexity of the appeals process. These hypotheses were structured to answer the overarching questions of whether the appeals process operated differently for forensic versus civil inpatients and whether clinical data could predict violent behavior that emerged while waiting for the appeal to be heard. This investigation is a retrospective cross sectional study that examined the electronic health records (EHRs) of 285 involuntary inpatients at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, Ontario, who applied for an appeal of their finding of incapacity to the Capacity Board (CCB)
There was a significant difference in the distribution of male and female inpatients according to forensic/ civil inpatient classification (forensic inpatients: male 90.3%/ female 9.7%; civil inpatients: male 63.0%/female 37.0%; (χ(1) = 9.2, p = .002)
Summary
The interaction between the criminal justice system and psychiatric services has demonstrated a tenuous relationship between balancing individual rights and public safety. Despite growing reliance on legal mechanisms to supplement psychiatric treatment plans, few studies have analyzed the emergence of violence among forensic and civil inpatients during the appeals process when inpatients remain untreated with psychotropic medications. Both forensic and civil inpatients are vulnerable to violent behavior during the appeals process due to lack of treatment that typically reduces violence [1].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
