<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Georg Høyer</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Olav Nyttingnes</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jorun Rugkåsa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ekaterina Sharashova</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tone Breines Simonsen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anne Høye</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Henriette Riley</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Impact of introducing capacity-based mental health legislation on the use of community treatment orders in Norway: case registry study</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BJPsych Open</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">community treatment orders</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CTO</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Effekt</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">impact</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">legislation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">lov</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">lovendring</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">TUD</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">tvungent vern uten døgnopphold</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">01/2022</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-open/article/impact-of-introducing-capacitybased-mental-health-legislation-on-the-use-of-community-treatment-orders-in-norway-case-registry-study/8C1302C4705F3887004051947463A7F6</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Background&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In 2017, a capacity-based criterion was added to the Norwegian Mental Health Act, stating that those with capacity to consent to treatment cannot be subjected to involuntary care unless there is risk to themselves or others. This was expected to reduce incidence and prevalence rates, and the duration of episodes of involuntary care, in particular regarding community treatment orders (CTOs).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aims&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The aim was to investigate whether the capacity-based criterion had the expected impact on the use of CTOs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Method&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This retrospective case register study included two catchment areas serving 16% of the Norwegian population (aged &amp;ge;18). In total, 760 patients subject to 921 CTOs between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019 were included to compare the use of CTOs 2 years before and 2 years after the legal reform.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Results&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;CTO incidence rates and duration did not change after the reform, whereas prevalence rates were significantly reduced. This was explained by a sharp increase in termination of CTOs in the year of the reform, after which it reduced and settled on a slightly higher leven than before the reform. We found an unexpected significant increase in the use of involuntary treatment orders for patients on CTOs after the reform.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conclusions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The expected impact on CTO use of introducing a capacity-based criterion in the Norwegian Mental Health Act was not confirmed by our study. Given the existing challenges related to defining and assessing decision-making capacity, studies examining the validity of capacity assessments and their impact on the use of coercion in clinical practice are urgently needed.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><label><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">tud</style></label></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Løvsletten, M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Husum, T. L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Granerud, A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Haug, E.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Outpatient commitment in mental health services from a municipal view</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Int. Journal of Law and Psychiatry</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Community Treatment Order</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CTO</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">kommune</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Outpatient commitment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">primærhelsetjeneste</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">TUD</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tvungent psykisk helsevern uten døgnopphold</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2020</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">03/2020</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160252720300108?dgcid=author</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">69</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;h3 id=&quot;st0010&quot;&gt;Background&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;sp0025&quot;&gt;Outpatient commitment (OC) is a legal decision for compulsory mental health care when the patient stays in his or her own home. Municipal health-care workers have a key role for patients with OC decision, but little is known about how the legislation system with OC works from the municipality&amp;#39;s point of view.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h3 id=&quot;st0015&quot;&gt;Method&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;sp0030&quot;&gt;The present study has a quantitative descriptive design using an electronic questionnaire sent to health-care workers in the municipalities that participated. The study included health-care workers from the mental health services in two counties in Norway who have experience with psychosis and OC decisions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h3 id=&quot;st0020&quot;&gt;Results&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;sp0035&quot;&gt;There were 230 people who received the questionnaire. The sample consisted of various health professionals from both small and large municipalities.The results show which tasks they have in follow-up of patients in the municipalities.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h3 id=&quot;st0025&quot;&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;sp0040&quot;&gt;From the municipality&amp;#39;s point of view, there are no significant differences in follow-up for patients with or without an OC decision, apart from conversations about medication. An individual plan is rarely used to facilitate follow-up, although this is the statutory right of patients with OC decisions. The health-care workers lack knowledge and education about the OC scheme. The cooperation between municipalities and the specialist health-care services is not clearly defined.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><label><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">TUD</style></label></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stuen, HK</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Landheim, A</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rugkåsa, J</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wynn, R</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">How clinicians make decisions about CTOs in ACT: a qualitative study</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">International Journal of  Mental Health Systems</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ACT</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Community Treatment Order</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">CTO</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11/2018</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://ijmhs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13033-018-0230-2</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;h3&gt;BACKGROUND:&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p&gt;The first 12 Norwegian assertive community treatment (ACT) teams were piloted from 2009 to 2011. Of the 338 patients included during the teams&amp;#39; first year of operation, 38% were subject to community treatment orders (CTOs). In Norway as in many other Western countries, the use of CTOs is relatively high despite lack of robust evidence for their effectiveness. The purpose of the present study was to explore how responsible clinicians reason and make decisions about the&amp;nbsp;continued use of CTOs, recall to hospital and the&amp;nbsp;discontinuation of CTOs within an ACT setting.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h4&gt;METHODS:&lt;/h4&gt;&lt;p&gt;Semi-structured interviews with eight responsible clinicians combined with patient case files and observations of treatment planning meetings. The data were analysed using a modified grounded theory approach.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h4&gt;RESULTS:&lt;/h4&gt;&lt;p&gt;The participants emphasized that being part of a multidisciplinary team with shared caseload responsibility that provides intensive services over long periods of time allowed for more nuanced assessments and more flexible treatment solutions on CTOs. The treatment criterion was typically used to justify the need for CTO. There was substantial variation in the responsible clinicians&amp;#39; legal interpretation of dangerousness, and some clinicians applied the dangerousness criterion more than others.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h4&gt;CONCLUSIONS:&lt;/h4&gt;&lt;p&gt;According to the clinicians, many patients subject to CTOs were referred from hospitals and high security facilities, and decisions regarding the continuation of CTOs typically involved multiple and interacting risk factors. While patients&amp;#39; need for treatment was most often applied to justify the need for CTOs, in some cases the&amp;nbsp;use of CTOs was described as a tool to contain dangerousness and prevent harm.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">51</style></issue><label><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">TUD</style></label></record></records></xml>