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}
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.
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”.