Advance decisions to refuse treatment and suicidal behaviour in emergency care: ‘it's very much a step into the unknown’

Author:

Quinlivan LeahORCID,Nowland Rebecca,Steeg Sarah,Cooper Jayne,Meehan Declan,Godfrey Joseph,Robertson Duncan,Longson Damien,Potokar John,Davies Rosie,Allen Neil,Huxtable Richard,Mackway-Jones Kevin,Hawton Keith,Gunnell David,Kapur Nav

Abstract

Background Complex challenges may arise when patients present to emergency services with an advance decision to refuse life-saving treatment following suicidal behaviour. Aims To investigate 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. Method 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: (a) they may enhance patient autonomy and aid clarity in acute emergencies, but also create legal and ethical uncertainty over treatment following self-harm; (b) they are anxiety provoking for clinicians; and (c) in practice, there are challenges in validation (for example, validating the patient’s mental capacity at the time of writing), time constraints and significant legal/ethical complexities. Conclusions The potential for patients to refuse life-saving 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. Declaration of interest D.G., K.H. and N.K. are members of the Department of Health's (England) National Suicide Prevention Advisory Group. N.K. chaired the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline development group for the longer-term management of self-harm and the NICE Topic Expert Group (which developed the quality standards for self-harm services). He is currently chair of the updated NICE guideline for Depression. K.H. and D.G. are NIHR Senior Investigators. K.H. is also supported by the Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and N.K. by the Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust.

Publisher

Royal College of Psychiatrists

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health

Reference34 articles.

1. Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees;Goodyear-Smith;BMC Med Ethics,2015

2. Non-suicidal self-injury v. attempted suicide: new diagnosis or false dichotomy?;Kapur;Br J Psychiatry,2013

3. Examination of real-time fluctuations in suicidal ideation and its risk factors: results from two ecological momentary assessment studies;Kleiman;J Abnorm Psychol,2017

4. Suicide survivors: a follow-up study of persons who survived jumping from the Golden Gate and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridges;Rosen;West J Med,1975

5. Cognition and suicide: two decades of progress;Ellis;Int J Cogn Ther,2008

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3