Joint Crisis Plans Research Articles

Interventions for Escalating Crisis Situations in Inpatient Acute Psychiatric Treatment - Results of a Content Analysis of Joint Crisis Plans

Identification of interventions to prevent coercive measures in the event of escalating crisis situations in an inpatient acute psychiatric treatment context. Content analysis of 98 joint crisis plans (JCP) using frequency analysis (secondary data analysis). In over half of the joint crisis plans, withdrawal to a low-stimulation environment (64.3%), a conversation (62.2%), and a walk (57.1%) were agreed upon as intervention for escalating crisis situations. A significant difference (p=0.020) was found in relation to the intake of (on-demand) medication, which was determined exclusively by males. The results provide potentially helpful suggestions for escalating crisis situations and gender-specific findings with regard to the agreed interventions.

Children and adolescents at risk for seclusion and restraint in inpatient psychiatric treatment: a case control study

To reduce coercion in acute inpatient child and adolescent psychiatric units, a better understanding of individuals at risk for seclusion and/or restraint (S/R) is needed. We report data on the proportion of patients secluded/restrained and factors associated with higher risk of S/R. Identifying preventative mechanisms through risk stratification upon inpatient admission can aid the training of mental health professionals, and support shaping specific workflows for at-risk populations for example by joint crisis plans or post-coercion review sessions. Methods: A case-control study included all admissions (n = 782) to a department of child and adolescent psychiatry within 36 months between 2019 and 2022. Data on age, sex, out of home care, primary and comorbid ICD-10 diagnoses, length of stay, prior/multiple admissions were compared between admissions with and without S/R using chi square tests for categorical and t-tests for continuous variables. Uni- and multivariate binary logistic regression models were computed. Results: The overall proportion of S/R was 12.8% (n = 100). Females (p = 0.001), patients in out of home care (p < 0.001), with prior admission (p < 0.001), Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; p < 0.001) and Borderline personality disorder (BPD; p < 0.001) were at a significantly higher risk of S/R. Length of stay in days (OR 1.01), out of home care (OR 3.85), PTSD (OR 6.20), BPD (OR 15.17), Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)/conduct disorder (OR 4.29), and manic episode/bipolar disorder (OR 36.41) were significantly associated with S/R in multivariate regression. Conclusions: Child and adolescent psychiatric staff should consider risk factors when using coercive measures. Patients with PTSD and/or BPD are the most vulnerable subgroups. Training of professionals and clinical practice need to be adapted in order to prevent the use of S/R and its potential hazards.

Crisis and acute mental health care for people who have been given a diagnosis of a ‘personality disorder’: a systematic review

BackgroundPeople who have been given a diagnosis of a ‘personality disorder’ need access to good quality mental healthcare when in crisis, but the evidence underpinning crisis services for this group is limited. We synthesised quantitative studies reporting outcomes for people with a ‘personality disorder’ diagnosis using crisis and acute mental health services.MethodsWe searched OVID Medline, PsycInfo, PsycExtra, Web of Science, HMIC, CINAHL Plus, Clinical Trials and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that reported at least one clinical or social outcome following use of crisis and acute care for people given a ‘personality disorder’ diagnosis. We performed a narrative synthesis of evidence for each model of care found.ResultsWe screened 16,953 records resulting in 35 studies included in the review. Studies were published between 1987–2022 and conducted in 13 countries. Six studies were RCTs, the remainder were non randomised controlled studies or cohort studies reporting change over time. Studies were found reporting outcomes for crisis teams, acute hospital admission, acute day units, brief admission, crisis-focused psychotherapies in a number of settings, Mother and Baby units, an early intervention service and joint crisis planning. The evidence for all models of care except brief admission and outpatient-based psychotherapies was assessed as low or very low certainty.ConclusionThe literature found was sparse and of low quality. There were no high-quality studies that investigated outcomes following use of crisis team or hospital admission for this group. Studies investigating crisis-focused psychological interventions showed potentially promising results.

Psychiatric Advance Directives: A Call for Humanization

Psychiatric Advance Directives: A Call for Humanization

Joint Crisis Plans and Crisis Cards in Inpatient Psychiatric Treatment—a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Joint Crisis Plans (JCP) and crisis cards (CC) are both instruments designed to improve the management of future psychiatric crisis situations, but they differ, for example, in terms of resource use, legal validity, and aims. International research findings for JCP are inconsistent. From January 2018 to December 2020, a single-blinded, two-armed multicenter RCT was carried out, with assessments at T0 (baseline) and T1 (18 months later). The patients included had schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and were aged between 18 and 62 years. The primary outcome was the cumulative duration of inpatient treatment (voluntary/involuntary), and coercive measures comprised the secondary outcome. Trial registration: DRKS00013985. Of the 266 study participants, 157 completed the study. In the CC group 57.8% and in the JCP group 64.9% were admitted to psychiatric hospitals between the index treatment and T1 (p = 0.367); 8.4% of the CC group and 12.2% of the JPC group were admitted against their will (p = 0.441). The cumulative treatment duration was not significantly shorter (p = 0.631) in the JPC group (mean 42.43 days, SD = 48.60) than in the CC group (50.16 days, SD = 74.16). Thus, JPCs did not achieve the expected improvement with regard to the primary endpoint. There were also no relevant differences regarding the secondary endpoint. Major effects in favor of the JCP were observed, however, in patients' development of conficence in the treatment teams and in their active participation in the treatment procedure. Although the study showed no superiority of JCP over CC with regard to the primary and secondary outcomes, JCP should be used more frequently in routine practice as an intervention to support a participative approach to treatment.

Advance statements in mental healthcare: time to close the evidence to practice gap.

This article discusses advance statements in mental health care, which allow individuals with mental disorders to express their preferences for treatment during mental health crises. Despite the evidence supporting their effectiveness, their implementation in clinical practice remains limited. This article explores variations among advance statements, such as psychiatric advance directives (PADs), joint crisis plans (JCPs) and self-binding directives (SBDs), highlighting their content, development process and legal status. We outline the benefits of advance statements, including empowerment, early intervention, improved therapeutic relationships and reduced compulsory admissions. We then draw attention to the challenges that may contribute to their lack of implementation, including legal complexities, communication issues, cultural factors, potential inequities, healthcare provider knowledge, changing preferences, resource constraints, crisis responses, data privacy, family involvement, and long-term evaluation. In conclusion, advance statements offer significant benefits but require addressing these critical aspects to ensure ethical and effective use. Bridging the evidence-to-practice gap is essential, with a focus on implementation science. Integrating these tools into routine clinical practice can significantly benefit individuals with severe mental disorders and mental health systems.

Behandlungsvereinbarungen in der Psychiatrie – reale Praxis in einem Verbund psychiatrischer Kliniken

Joint crisis plans (JCPs) are offered in many psychiatric hospitals, but patients only rarely make use of them. To assess the rates of JCPs among inpatients of mental health hospitals and to analyze the clinical characteristics of patients who make use of aJCP. We carried out aretrospective analysis of routine data from the statistical database/basis documentation of the LVR hospital association, which consists of nine psychiatric hospitals. The basis documentation is consistent in the nine hospitals. All admissions between 2016 and 2020 were considered. We recorded the existence of aJCP, age, gender and main diagnosis at release, as well as previous hospital stays, detention under the Mental Health Act of the Federal State of NRW and experiences with compulsory measures (seclusion/restraint) in the previous 24months before index admission. Out of atotal of 117,662 inpatients 467 (0.4%) had completed aJCP. Patients with JCP were more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or emotionally unstable personality disorder. Patients with aJCP had more previous inpatient stays and they had more frequently experienced detentions and compulsory measures. However, 50% of the patients with aJCP had other diagnoses and the vast majority of them had experienced no detention or compulsory measure in the 24months preceding the first documentation of aJCP. Overall, the use of JCPs is limited. The targeted group of patients with severe mental illness and previous experience with involuntary placements and compulsory measures make use of the offer of aJCP but so do other patients as well. Additional qualitative analyses are required in order to analyze the content and objectives of JCPs in more detail.

Crisis interventions for adults with borderline personality disorder.

People diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD) frequently present to healthcare services in crisis, often with suicidal thoughts or actions. Despite this, little is known about what constitutes effective management of acute crises in this population and what type of interventions are helpful at times of crisis. In this review, we will examine the efficacy of crisis interventions, defined as an immediate response by one or more individuals to the acute distress experienced by another individual, designed to ensure safety and recovery and lasting no longer than one month. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane Review examining the evidence for the effects of crisis interventions in adults diagnosed with BPD. To assess the effects of crisis interventions in adults diagnosed with BPD in any setting. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and three trials registers up to January 2022. We also checked reference lists, handsearched relevant journal archives andcontacted experts in the field to identify any unpublished or ongoing studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing crisis interventions with usual care, no intervention or waiting list, in adults of any age diagnosed with BPD. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included two studies with 213 participants. One study (88 participants) was a feasibility RCT conducted in the UK that examined the effects of joint crisis plans (JCPs) plus treatment as usual (TAU) compared to TAU alone in people diagnosed with BPD. The primary outcome was self-harm. Participants had an average age of 36 years, and 81% were women. Government research councils funded the study. Risk of bias was unclear for blinding, but low in the other domains assessed. Evidence from this study suggested that there may be no difference between JCPs and TAU on deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 14.14; 88 participants; low-certainty evidence); mean number of self-harm episodes (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% CI -36.27 to 36.87; 72 participants; low-certainty evidence), number of inpatient mental health nights (MD 1.80, 95% CI -5.06 to 8.66; 73 participants; low-certainty evidence), or quality of life measured using the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D; MD -6.10, 95% CI -15.52 to 3.32; 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study authors calculated an Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio of GBP -32,358 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), favouring JCPs, but they described this result as "hypothesis-generating only" and we rated this as very low-certainty evidence. The other study (125 participants) was an RCT conducted in Sweden of brief admission to psychiatric hospital by self-referral (BA) compared to TAU, in people with self-harm or suicidal behaviour and three or more diagnostic criteria for BPD. The primary outcome was use of inpatient mental health services. Participants had an average age of 32 years, and 85% were women. Government research councils and non-profit foundations funded the study. Risk of bias was unclear for blinding and baseline imbalances, but low in the other domains assessed. The evidence suggested that there is no clear difference between BA and TAU on deaths (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.29; 125 participants; low-certainty evidence), mean number of self-harm episodes (MD -0.03, 95% CI -2.26 to 2.20; 125 participants; low-certainty evidence), violence perpetration (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.13; 125 participants; low-certainty evidence), or days of inpatient mental health care (MD 0.70, 95% CI -14.32 to 15.72; 125 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study suggested that BA may have little or no effect on the mean number of suicide attempts (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 125 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We also identified three ongoing RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. The results will be incorporated into future updates of this review. A comprehensive search of the literature revealed very little RCT-based evidence to inform the management of acute crises in people diagnosed with BPD. We included two studies of two very different types of intervention (JCP and BA). We found no clear evidence of a benefit over TAU in any of our main outcomes. We are very uncertain about the true effects of either intervention, as the evidence was judged low- and very low-certainty, and there was only a single study of each intervention. There is an urgent need for high-quality, large-scale, adequately powered RCTs on crisis interventions for people diagnosed with BPD, in addition to development of new crisis interventions.

Facilitation of Psychiatric Advance Directives by peer-workers: results from DAiP

Introduction United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognized that people with psychosocial disabilities have the same right to take decisions and make choices as other people. Consequently, direct or supported decision-making should be the norm and there should be no substitute decision-making. However, these principles are far from common practice in many mental health services. Joint-crisis plan (JCP) and Psychiatric advance directives (PAD) are interesting tools to translate the shared-decision making principle into clinical and practical reality. Most existing JCP or PAD involve facilitators, which improves their effectiveness, but facilitators are mostly professionals.ObjectivesIn this context, DAiP study was launched to evaluate the efficacy of PAD facilitated by peer-workers.MethodsDAiP was a multicenter randomized controlled trial conducted in 7 French mental health facilities, with a complementary qualitative approach. 394 adults with a DSM-5 diagnosis of schizophrenia (SCZ), bipolar I disorder (BP-I), or schizoaffective disorders (SCZaff ), who were compulsorily hospitalized in the past 12 months were enrolled from January 2019 and followed up for 12 months. Outcomes were compulsory admission rate, therapeutic alliance (4-PAS), quality of life (S-QOL), mental health symptoms (MCSI), empowerment (ES) and recovery (RAS).ResultsIn this communication, we propose to describe the practices of facilitation of peer-workers and analyze outcomes in lights of process measurements (whether or not participants completed PAD document, shared PAD and with whom, met facilitator, used PADConclusionsInvolving peer-workers in the redaction of PADs coherently supports the current shift of mental health care from ‘substitute decision making’ to ‘supported decision making’.DisclosureNo significant relationships.

Community interventions for people with complex emotional needs that meet the criteria for personality disorder diagnoses: systematic review of economic evaluations and expert commentary

Background Diagnoses of personality disorder are prevalent among people using community secondary mental health services. Identifying cost-effective community-based interventions is important when working with finite resources. Aims To assess the cost-effectiveness of primary or secondary care community-based interventions for people with complex emotional needs who meet criteria for a diagnosis of personality disorder to inform healthcare policy-making. Method Systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020134068) of databases. We included economic evaluations of interventions for adults with complex emotional needs associated with a diagnosis of personality disorder in community mental health settings published before 18 September 2019. Study quality was assessed using the CHEERS statement. Results Eighteen studies were included. The studies mainly evaluated psychotherapeutic interventions. Studies were also identified that evaluated altering the setting in which care was delivered and joint crisis plans. No strong economic evidence to support a single intervention or model of community-based care was identified. Conclusions Robust economic evidence to support a single intervention or model of community-based care for people with complex emotional needs is lacking. The strongest evidence was for dialectical behaviour therapy, with all three identified studies indicating that it is likely to be cost-effective in community settings compared with treatment as usual. More robust evidence is required on the cost-effectiveness of community-based interventions on which decision makers can confidently base guidelines or allocate resources. The evidence should be based on consistent measures of costs and outcomes with sufficient sample sizes to demonstrate impacts on these.

The Joint Crisis Plan: A Powerful Tool to Promote Mental Health.

Purpose: The Joint Crisis Plan (JCP) has received growing interest in clinical and research settings. JCP is a type of psychiatric advance statement that describes how to recognize early signs of crisis and how to manage crises. The purpose of the present study, to our knowledge the first to be conducted on this topic in the French-speaking context and to include inpatients, was to describe the content of JCPs and how they are perceived by patients and the providers.Methods: The study used an exploratory, mixed, sequential method. Existing JCPs were retrospectively collected in several clinical contexts (hospital, community settings, and sheltered accommodation). Based on their analyses, we conducted semi-structured interviews including some rating scales on the perception of the JCPs among patients and providers in these settings. For the qualitative analyses, content analyses were conducted with a hybrid approach using NVivo 12 software. Data were double-coded and discussed with a third researcher until agreement was reached.Results: One hundred eighty-four JCPs were collected retrospectively and 24 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 12 providers. No relatives could be included in the research process. The content of the studied JCPs was relevant and indicated that patients had good knowledge of themselves and their illness. Improvements in the quality of the therapeutic relationship, respect for patients' choices and wishes, and a greater sense of control of their illness were reported. The JCP was perceived as a very useful tool by patients and providers. Concerning JCP limitations, lack of staff training, difficulties with the shared decision-making process, and the poor availability of the JCPs when needed were reported.Conclusion: The study highlights that JCPs may be used with patients suffering from a large variety of psychiatric disorders in different care settings. The JCP is perceived as very useful by both patients and providers. The promising results of this study support the promotion of the wide use of JCPs with patients who have experienced crises. It is important to continue to research JCPs through impact studies that include family members.

Practitioner opinions of crisis plans within early intervention in psychosis services: A mixed methods study.

The efficacy of crisis planning in mental health services is contested. As recovery and self-management are core to Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services and the Care Programme Approach (CPA), the views of EIP practitioners of the most useful aspects of crisis planning can inform this vital aspect of practice. We conducted a mixed methods study using a national cross-sectional survey (n=70) and semi-structured interviews (n=12) with EIP practitioners in England in 2019. Data were analysed using non-parametric tests and thematic analysis. A Joint Crisis Plan (JCP) template was used as a benchmark to judge current practice by (Sutherby etal., 1999; Henderson etal., 2004; Thornicroft etal., 2013). The most useful crisis plan themes identified by practitioners included early warning signs, triggers and helpful treatments, although not all elements were considered useful. Additionally, the interviews identified that collaboration with clients, carers and other services; personalisation; and self-management were all considered important in effective crisis planning. The practitioners also identified barriers to effective crisis planning, such as the electronic records system, lack of time and lack of available service provision. The research highlighted the important aspects of EIP and was significant in impacting the service and wider EIP network further. While crisis planning is a significant part of EIP, it does not appear to be consistently applied in practice. Fully implementing collaborative crisis planning in EIP services may require changes to policy, practice and local systems to ensure that crisis planning is as effective as possible.

Quels outils thérapeutiques en faveur du rétablissement dans la schizophrénie ?

Recovery is a multidimensional construct that encompasses both subjective (e.g. well-being, satisfaction with life, self-esteem) and objective outcomes (e.g. independent living, interpersonal and intimate relationships, work). Recovery can be defined either from a clinical perspective (i.e. clinical and functional remission) or from a consumer-focused one, as a self-broadening process aimed at living a meaningful life beyond mental illness. Recovery-oriented practices imply to create pro-recovery environment seeking to enhance hope, control, strengths, goal striving and self-management. Their implementation in mental health services has shown effectiveness in improving personal recovery. Psychiatric rehabilitation brings together a wide range of recovery-oriented interventions. A comprehensive clinical, functional and cognitive assessment is performed to establish the individual's strengths and weaknesses, autonomy, and occupational level. Therapeutic tools are selected based on the participant's personal life goals as part of an individualized psychiatric rehabilitation action plan. The action plan can include strengths-based case management, psychoeducation, improvements in physical and mental health, peer-support interventions, joint crisis plans, cognitive remediation (CR), cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), social skills training (SST), self-stigma reduction, making empowered decisions about disclosure, family support, recovery-oriented interventions from preconception to post-partum care and supported housing and supported employment. Psychiatric rehabilitation interventions improve patient's outcomes after one year of follow-up (i.e. symptom reduction, improvements in insight, treatment adherence and cognitive and psychosocial function). The access to psychiatric rehabilitation interventions remains however limited (1/3 of the participants with SSD included in the FondaMental Advanced Centers of Expertise for SSD) and should be further developed. Supported housing and supported employment improve the access to stable housing and sustained competitive employment. They have been associated to improved patient's outcomes and have shown to be cost-effective. Recovery-oriented interventions from preconception to post-partum care (reproductive health counseling, strength-based case management by a trained midwife, shared action plan, self-stigma reduction, cognitive remediation, gender-sensitive CBT and SST) could reduce the risk of psychiatric, obstetrical and neonatal complications. They could reduce the risks of parent-infant separation and custody loss and could prevent the development of psychosis in family high-risk children. These interventions should be further developed and evaluated. Recovery-oriented practices and psychiatric rehabilitation support recovery in people with SSD. The access to a comprehensive standardized evaluation and to a personalized recovery-oriented care including psychosocial treatment remains limited. Their implementation in mental health services figures among the priorities under the French decree on the territory national mental health plan for recovery-focused care.

Patient perspectives on an intervention after suicide attempt: The need for patient centred and individualized care.

BackgroundMany types of intervention exist for suicide attempters, but they tend not to sufficiently consider patient’s views.AimTo identify useful components of a previously evaluated intervention after a suicide attempt from the patient’s views and to better understand the process of recovery.MethodForty-one interviews with suicide attempters were qualitatively analysed. Views of participants (i) on the components of the intervention (nurse case-management, joint crisis plan, meetings with relatives/network and follow-up calls) and (ii) their recovery were explored. The material was analysed by means of thematic analysis with a deductive-inductive approach.ResultsParticipants valued the human and professional qualities of the nurse case-manager, and appreciated follow-up calls and meetings. However, their views diverged regarding for instance frequency of phone calls, or disclosing information or lack thereof. Interpersonal relationship, suicide attempters’ own resources and life changes emerged as core recovery factors.DiscussionThe study highlights the figure of an engaged clinician, with both professional and human commitment, aware that some suicide attempters put more emphasis on their own resources than on delivered health care.ConclusionsInterventions should consider the clinician as the cornerstone of the tailored care valued by suicide attempters.

German S3 guidelines on avoidance of coercion: prevention and therapy of aggressive behavior in adults

This article reports on the developmental process, significance and scope of clinical practice guidelines and presents changes to the former S2 guidelines on therapeutic interventions for aggressive behavior (2010). Aggressive behavior is understood both in the context of risk characteristics on the patient side and as aresult of escalating conflicts between patients and staff. If coercive measures are unavoidable, they must be carried out in the most bearable and humane way possible for all participants. For the first time these guidelines provide clear evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for these issues. In addition to prevention, de-escalation, rapid tranquilization and pharmacotherapy of acute states of agitation and of recurrent aggressive behavior, technical, legal and ethical aspects of coercive measures and therapeutic support during coercive measures are covered. Further recommendations concern measures of tertiary prophylaxis, such as debriefing, joint crisis plans and external monitoring by visiting commissions and political committees. Implementation recommendations have been formulated from the guidelines. They are currently being tested in apilot study funded by the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN).

Crisis-planning interventions for people with psychotic illness or bipolar disorder: systematic review and meta-analyses.

Mental health services lack a strong evidence base on the most effective interventions to reduce compulsory admissions. However, some research suggests a positive impact of crisis-planning interventions in which patients are involved in planning for their future care during a mental health crisis. This review aimed to synthesise randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence on the effectiveness of crisis-planning interventions (for example advance statements and joint crisis plans) in reducing rates of compulsory hospital admissions for people with psychotic illness or bipolar disorder, compared with usual care (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084808). Six online databases were searched in October 2018. The primary outcome was compulsory psychiatric admissions and secondary outcomes included other psychiatric admissions, therapeutic alliance, perceived coercion and cost-effectiveness. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration tool. The search identified 1428 studies and 5 RCTs were eligible. One study had high risk of bias because of incomplete primary outcome data. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a 25% reduction in compulsory admissions for those receiving crisis-planning interventions compared with usual care (risk ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93, P = 0.008; from five studies). There was no statistical evidence that the intervention reduced the risk of voluntary or combined voluntary and compulsory psychiatric admissions. Few studies assessed other secondary outcomes. Our meta-analysis suggests that crisis-planning interventions substantially reduce the risk of compulsory admissions among individuals with psychotic illness or bipolar disorder. Despite common components, interventions varied in their content and intensity across the trials. The optimal models and implementation of these interventions require further investigation. E.M., S.L., S.J. and B.L.-E. received funding from the National Institute for Health Research during the conduct of the study.

Impact of Joint Crisis Plan

Impact of Joint Crisis Plan

Psychiatrists’ views on different types of advance statements in mental health care in Germany

Advance directives enable patients to ensure that treatment decisions will be based on their autonomous will, even if they are incompetent at the time at which the treatment decision is taken. Although psychiatric advance directives are legally binding in Germany and their benefits are widely acknowledged, they are still infrequently used in German psychiatric practice. The aim of this study is to assess psychiatrists' attitudes toward the use of advance statements in mental health care. A postal survey of psychiatrists in Germany was carried out to examine their views on advance statements in psychiatry. The survey addressed psychiatrists' experiences of and attitudes toward different types of advance statements, including psychiatric advance statements written by patients without any specific assistance, and joint crisis plans ( 'Behandlungsvereinbarungen'), where involvement of the clinical team is required. A total of 396 responded. Results suggest that generally speaking, respondents held favorable views on joint crisis plans for mental health care. In all, 80.7% of participants agreed that more frequent use of joint crisis plans in clinical practice would be desirable. However, clinicians' attitudes differ largely depending on the type of advance statement. Implications for the use of advance statements in psychiatry are discussed. The findings suggest that increasing the support structures available to train physicians and inform patients could lead to increased adoption of advance statements.

«Ingen andre kan fly det helikopteret bortsett fra deg selv»: En kvalitativ studie av opplevelser med bruk av kriseplan [“No one else can fly that helicopter apart from yourself”: A qualitative study of experiences with crisis plan usage

A joint crisis plan is highlighted in several of the Norwegian national guidelines as a recommended measure for treatment of adults with mental health difficulties. The purpose of our qualitative study is to describe patient experiences with joint crisis plans and to highlight how patients have used such plans after being discharged from a psychiatric ward. Data was collected through six semi-structured interviews and the analysis was conducted through qualitative content analysis. The conclusion is drawn that the joint crisis plan is beneficial for those patients who can implement the use of it. This research can contribute valuable insight about how to work with joint crisis plans and can ensure that patients’ ability to help themselves during crisis increases.

Les directives anticipées psychiatriques (DAP) : propositions pour un modèle en France

ObjectivesPsychiatric advance directives (PAD) are written documents which are used for patients to notify in advance their preferences for psychiatric treatment for a future situation of relapse when they are unable to give their consent. It contains his or her treatment preferences for any future psychiatric emergency, when he or she may be too unwell to express clear views. The hypothesis is that such active involvement by the patient in the process of crisis planning will increase the likelihood of averting major relapse and the need for compulsory detention. Materials and methodsThis article reviews the current state of knowledge on use of PAD and then explains the propositions for developing a new model of PAD in France. ResultsMany studies show a real interest for PAD, regarding user's autonomy, therapeutic alliance and diminution of coercion. PAD may contain information about medication, symptoms, non pharmaceutical demands, name of a proxy decision maker. Different types of PAD exist, depending on the number of stakeholders involved in their completion. Despite a lot of promises, implementation of PAD remains difficult. We define the Plan SOS as a new model of PAD, inspired by the Joint Crisis Plan. It's based on the completion with the user, his medical team, his family and the presence of a facilitator, of an advance care planning. ConclusionPlan SOS is so far a research intervention and a current study is taking place to explore effect of Plans SOS on number of hospitalisations, clinical state, and therapeutic alliance.