跨司法管辖区的精神病风险治理:非自愿治疗、社区治疗令和法医精神卫生服务的比较分析。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Matteo Lippi, Laura Leondina Campanozzi, Giuseppe D'Andrea, Donato Morena, Francesca Orsini, Felice Marco Damato, Giuseppe Fanelli, Yasin Hasan Balcioglu, Howard Ryland, Thomas Fovet, Birgit Völlm, Javier Vicente-Alba, Charles L Scott, Paola Frati, Vittoradolfo Tambone, Raffaella Rinaldi
{"title":"跨司法管辖区的精神病风险治理:非自愿治疗、社区治疗令和法医精神卫生服务的比较分析。","authors":"Matteo Lippi, Laura Leondina Campanozzi, Giuseppe D'Andrea, Donato Morena, Francesca Orsini, Felice Marco Damato, Giuseppe Fanelli, Yasin Hasan Balcioglu, Howard Ryland, Thomas Fovet, Birgit Völlm, Javier Vicente-Alba, Charles L Scott, Paola Frati, Vittoradolfo Tambone, Raffaella Rinaldi","doi":"10.3390/healthcare13182363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: This article presents an international comparative review of involuntary psychiatric care, Community Treatment Orders (CTOs), and forensic mental health services, with operational implications for Italy. Italy has a community-based model inspired by the \"Basaglia Law\" (Law No. 180/1978), emphasizing deinstitutionalization and continuity of care. Nevertheless, risk governance gaps persist for high-complexity patients, imposing a disproportionate legal and clinical burden on mental health professionals. This group includes individuals who refuse treatment despite meeting criteria for compulsory admission, patients at elevated risk with substantial management complexity, and offenders with a current or suspected psychiatric disorder. <b>Methods</b>: We conducted a comparative legal and policy review across seven jurisdictions (Italy, England and Wales (UK), France, Germany, Spain, the United States, and Canada) to map frameworks for involuntary treatment, forensic services, CTOs (or equivalents), and community-based risk management. We also extracted procedural safeguards, duration and renewal limits, and interfaces with forensic services. <b>Results</b>: CTOs are available in five of the seven jurisdictions (England and Wales, France, Spain, the United States, and Canada) but are absent in Italy and Germany. We propose a three-pillar framework: (1) enforceable outpatient measures, including CTOs; (2) Forensic Psychiatry Units within Local Health Authorities; and (3) oversight boards with judicial, clinical, and social representatives. These components aim to redistribute responsibility, ensure continuity of care, and provide proportional oversight within a least restrictive, graduated system. <b>Conclusions</b>: When narrowly targeted, time limited, and paired with robust safeguards and service-quality standards, CTOs can support adherence and continuity for patients who repeatedly disengage from care. For Italy, integrating this instrument within the three-pillar framework and under independent oversight could strengthen patient rights and public safety, reduce revolving-door admissions, and improve outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12977,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare","volume":"13 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12470205/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychiatric Risk Governance Across Jurisdictions: A Comparative Analysis of Involuntary Treatment, Community Treatment Orders, and Forensic Mental Health Services.\",\"authors\":\"Matteo Lippi, Laura Leondina Campanozzi, Giuseppe D'Andrea, Donato Morena, Francesca Orsini, Felice Marco Damato, Giuseppe Fanelli, Yasin Hasan Balcioglu, Howard Ryland, Thomas Fovet, Birgit Völlm, Javier Vicente-Alba, Charles L Scott, Paola Frati, Vittoradolfo Tambone, Raffaella Rinaldi\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/healthcare13182363\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b>: This article presents an international comparative review of involuntary psychiatric care, Community Treatment Orders (CTOs), and forensic mental health services, with operational implications for Italy. Italy has a community-based model inspired by the \\\"Basaglia Law\\\" (Law No. 180/1978), emphasizing deinstitutionalization and continuity of care. Nevertheless, risk governance gaps persist for high-complexity patients, imposing a disproportionate legal and clinical burden on mental health professionals. This group includes individuals who refuse treatment despite meeting criteria for compulsory admission, patients at elevated risk with substantial management complexity, and offenders with a current or suspected psychiatric disorder. <b>Methods</b>: We conducted a comparative legal and policy review across seven jurisdictions (Italy, England and Wales (UK), France, Germany, Spain, the United States, and Canada) to map frameworks for involuntary treatment, forensic services, CTOs (or equivalents), and community-based risk management. We also extracted procedural safeguards, duration and renewal limits, and interfaces with forensic services. <b>Results</b>: CTOs are available in five of the seven jurisdictions (England and Wales, France, Spain, the United States, and Canada) but are absent in Italy and Germany. We propose a three-pillar framework: (1) enforceable outpatient measures, including CTOs; (2) Forensic Psychiatry Units within Local Health Authorities; and (3) oversight boards with judicial, clinical, and social representatives. These components aim to redistribute responsibility, ensure continuity of care, and provide proportional oversight within a least restrictive, graduated system. <b>Conclusions</b>: When narrowly targeted, time limited, and paired with robust safeguards and service-quality standards, CTOs can support adherence and continuity for patients who repeatedly disengage from care. For Italy, integrating this instrument within the three-pillar framework and under independent oversight could strengthen patient rights and public safety, reduce revolving-door admissions, and improve outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Healthcare\",\"volume\":\"13 18\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12470205/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13182363\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13182363","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本文介绍了非自愿精神科护理、社区治疗令(CTOs)和法医精神卫生服务的国际比较综述,并对意大利的业务影响。意大利有一个受“巴萨利亚法”(第180/1978号法律)启发的以社区为基础的模式,强调照料的非机构化和连续性。然而,对于高度复杂的患者,风险管理差距仍然存在,给精神卫生专业人员带来了不成比例的法律和临床负担。这一群体包括那些尽管符合强制入院标准却拒绝治疗的人,管理复杂且风险较高的患者,以及目前或疑似患有精神疾病的罪犯。方法:我们在七个司法管辖区(意大利、英格兰和威尔士(英国)、法国、德国、西班牙、美国和加拿大)进行了比较法律和政策审查,以绘制非自愿治疗、法医服务、首席技术官(或同等职位)和社区风险管理的框架。我们还提取了程序保障、期限和续期限制,以及与法医服务的接口。结果:cto在七个司法管辖区中的五个(英格兰和威尔士、法国、西班牙、美国和加拿大)都有,但在意大利和德国没有。我们提出了一个三支柱框架:(1)可执行的门诊措施,包括cto;(2)地方卫生当局的法医精神科;(3)由司法、临床和社会代表组成的监督委员会。这些组成部分旨在重新分配责任,确保护理的连续性,并在限制最少的分级制度内提供相应的监督。结论:如果目标明确,时间有限,并与强有力的保障措施和服务质量标准相结合,cto可以支持反复脱离护理的患者的依从性和连续性。对意大利来说,将这一工具纳入三支柱框架并置于独立监督之下,可以加强患者权利和公共安全,减少转门入院,并改善结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Psychiatric Risk Governance Across Jurisdictions: A Comparative Analysis of Involuntary Treatment, Community Treatment Orders, and Forensic Mental Health Services.

Psychiatric Risk Governance Across Jurisdictions: A Comparative Analysis of Involuntary Treatment, Community Treatment Orders, and Forensic Mental Health Services.

Psychiatric Risk Governance Across Jurisdictions: A Comparative Analysis of Involuntary Treatment, Community Treatment Orders, and Forensic Mental Health Services.

Background: This article presents an international comparative review of involuntary psychiatric care, Community Treatment Orders (CTOs), and forensic mental health services, with operational implications for Italy. Italy has a community-based model inspired by the "Basaglia Law" (Law No. 180/1978), emphasizing deinstitutionalization and continuity of care. Nevertheless, risk governance gaps persist for high-complexity patients, imposing a disproportionate legal and clinical burden on mental health professionals. This group includes individuals who refuse treatment despite meeting criteria for compulsory admission, patients at elevated risk with substantial management complexity, and offenders with a current or suspected psychiatric disorder. Methods: We conducted a comparative legal and policy review across seven jurisdictions (Italy, England and Wales (UK), France, Germany, Spain, the United States, and Canada) to map frameworks for involuntary treatment, forensic services, CTOs (or equivalents), and community-based risk management. We also extracted procedural safeguards, duration and renewal limits, and interfaces with forensic services. Results: CTOs are available in five of the seven jurisdictions (England and Wales, France, Spain, the United States, and Canada) but are absent in Italy and Germany. We propose a three-pillar framework: (1) enforceable outpatient measures, including CTOs; (2) Forensic Psychiatry Units within Local Health Authorities; and (3) oversight boards with judicial, clinical, and social representatives. These components aim to redistribute responsibility, ensure continuity of care, and provide proportional oversight within a least restrictive, graduated system. Conclusions: When narrowly targeted, time limited, and paired with robust safeguards and service-quality standards, CTOs can support adherence and continuity for patients who repeatedly disengage from care. For Italy, integrating this instrument within the three-pillar framework and under independent oversight could strengthen patient rights and public safety, reduce revolving-door admissions, and improve outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Healthcare
Healthcare Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: Healthcare (ISSN 2227-9032) is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal (free for readers), which publishes original theoretical and empirical work in the interdisciplinary area of all aspects of medicine and health care research. Healthcare publishes Original Research Articles, Reviews, Case Reports, Research Notes and Short Communications. We encourage researchers to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. For theoretical papers, full details of proofs must be provided so that the results can be checked; for experimental papers, full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Additionally, electronic files or software regarding the full details of the calculations, experimental procedure, etc., can be deposited along with the publication as “Supplementary Material”.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信