The role of ‘micro-decisions’ in involuntary admissions decision-making for inpatient psychiatric care in general hospitals in South Africa

Abstract

While the ethics of involuntary admission for psychiatric inpatient care is widely contested, the practice is legally permissible across most jurisdictions. In many countries, laws governing the use of involuntary admission set out core criteria under which involuntary admission is permitted; these parameters broadly related to either risk of harm to self or others, need for treatment, or both. In South Africa, the use of involuntary admission is governed by the Mental Health Care Act no. 17 of 2002 (MHCA 2002), which sets out clear criteria to direct mental healthcare practitioners' decision-making and delineates a process by which decision-making should occur. However, recent research suggests that, in practice, the process of decision-making differs from the procedure prescribed in the MHCA 2002. To further explore how decision-making for involuntary admission occurs in practice, we interviewed 20 mental healthcare practitioners, all with extensive experience of making involuntary admission decisions, working in district, regional, and tertiary hospitals across five provinces. We also interviewed four mental health advocates to explore patient-centered insights. Our analysis suggests that the final decision to involuntarily admit individuals for a 72-h assessment period under the MHCA 2002 was preceded by a series of ‘micro-decisions’ made by a range of stakeholders: 1) the family's or police's decision to bring the individual into hospital, 2) a triage nurse's decision to prioritise the individual along a mental healthcare pathway in the emergency centre, and 3) a medical officer's decision to sedate the individual. Practitioners reported that the outcomes of each of these ‘micro-decisions’ informed aspects of their final decision to admit an individual involuntarily. Our analysis therefore suggests that the final decision to admit involuntarily cannot be understood in isolation because practitioners draw on a range of additional information, gleaned from these prior ‘micro-decisions’, to inform the final decision to admit.