Involuntary psychiatric admission: The referring general practitioners’ assessment of patients’ dangerousness and need for psychiatric hospital treatment

Abstract

Background: In Norway, GPs may decide to refer patients to involuntary psychiatric treatment. Internationally, there has been a discussion regarding criteria for involuntary admission. In Norway and in other countries where the treatment criterion is still used, some have suggested its removal. Aims: To examine which legal criteria GPs used to refer patients to involuntary admission, whether they had thought about using a different criterion, and on which information they based their decision. Methods: A total of 74 doctors who had referred patients to involuntary admission at one major Norwegian psychiatric hospital participated in semi-structured interviews. Results: In total, 38% (28) had applied the danger criterion only and 23% (17) had applied the treatment criterion only; 32% (24) had applied both criteria, while 7% (5) did not answer this question; 74% (55) said that they could not have chosen a different criterion; 45% (33) had based their decision on events/behaviour prior to and during the consultation, 43% (32) on events prior to the consultation only, and 8% (6) on information obtained during the consultation only; 4% (3) did not answer this question. None had used tools to aid in the assessment of danger. Clinical implications: The danger criterion was frequently used by the referring GPs. It is unclear how a removal of the treatment criterion from Norwegian legislation might impact clinical practice. Conclusions: While the danger criterion was applied by a majority, the treatment criterion was also chosen by many and was of importance to the doctors’ reasoning regarding referrals to involuntary admission. Most thought they could not have chosen a different criterion.

• Health services
• Psychiatry
• General practitioners
• Involuntary admission
• Dangerousness

Acknowledgements

We thank the doctors who participated in the study.

Disclosure of interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The study did not receive external funding. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.