Abstract
Background:
We investigated the use of advance decisions to refuse treatment in the context of suicidal behaviour from the perspective of clinicians and people with lived experience of self-harm and/ or psychiatric services.
Methods:
Forty-one participants aged 18 or over from hospital services (emergency departments, liaison psychiatry and ambulance services) and groups of individuals with experience of psychiatric services and/or self-harm were recruited to six focus groups in a multisite study in England. Data were collected in 2016 using a structured topic guide and included a fictional vignette. They were analysed using Thematic Framework Analysis.
Results:
Advance decisions to refuse treatment for suicidal behaviour were contentious across groups. Three main themes emerged from the data:
1) they may enhance patient autonomy and aid clarity in acute emergencies, but also create legal and ethical uncertainty over treatment following self-harm;
2) they are anxiety provoking for clinicians; and
3) in practice, there are challenges in validation (e.g., capacity at the time of writing), time constraints and significant legal/ethical complexities.
Conclusion:
The potential for patients to refuse lifesaving treatment following suicidal behaviour in a legal document was challenging and anxiety provoking for participants. Clinicians should act with caution given the potential for recovery and fluctuations in suicidal ideation. Currently, advance decisions to refuse treatment have questionable use in the context of suicidal behaviour given the challenges in validation. Discussion and further patient research are needed in this area.
We investigated the use of advance decisions to refuse treatment in the context of suicidal behaviour from the perspective of clinicians and people with lived experience of self-harm and/ or psychiatric services.
Methods:
Forty-one participants aged 18 or over from hospital services (emergency departments, liaison psychiatry and ambulance services) and groups of individuals with experience of psychiatric services and/or self-harm were recruited to six focus groups in a multisite study in England. Data were collected in 2016 using a structured topic guide and included a fictional vignette. They were analysed using Thematic Framework Analysis.
Results:
Advance decisions to refuse treatment for suicidal behaviour were contentious across groups. Three main themes emerged from the data:
1) they may enhance patient autonomy and aid clarity in acute emergencies, but also create legal and ethical uncertainty over treatment following self-harm;
2) they are anxiety provoking for clinicians; and
3) in practice, there are challenges in validation (e.g., capacity at the time of writing), time constraints and significant legal/ethical complexities.
Conclusion:
The potential for patients to refuse lifesaving treatment following suicidal behaviour in a legal document was challenging and anxiety provoking for participants. Clinicians should act with caution given the potential for recovery and fluctuations in suicidal ideation. Currently, advance decisions to refuse treatment have questionable use in the context of suicidal behaviour given the challenges in validation. Discussion and further patient research are needed in this area.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e50 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | BJPsych Open |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 13 Jun 2019 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jul 2019 |
Research Groups and Themes
- SASH
Keywords
- self-harm
- suicidal behaviour
- emergency services
- capacity
- mental capacity act
- advance decisions
- treatment refusal
- qualitative research
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Cambridge University Press at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2019.42 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Handle.net
Other files and links
Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)
Accepted author manuscript, 364 KB