Background: Providing care for a home-dwelling person with dementia who resists care is an ethical and practical complex and challenging task. Faced with a growing number of persons with dementia, the healthcare professional’s understanding of how to best care for and prevent unnecessary use of coercion with persons with dementia is of key importance. Research aim: The aim of this study was to explore the use of trust-building interventions in home-dwelling persons with dementia resisting care, as described by health professionals (...) in documents of decisions of forced treatment and care. Research design: A qualitative thematic document analysis inspired by critical realism was conducted. Participants and research context: Descriptions of trust-building interventions were extracted from 88 documents of forced treatment and care for home-dwelling persons with dementia, receiving home healthcare, in 2015 and 2016. Ethical considerations: Approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, reference number 2017/788, and controlled by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data, reference number 54897. The study adhered to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Findings: We found that “balancing safe care with the person’s integrity” was an overarching theme that permeated the descriptions of trust-building interventions in the study. Three main themes were identified when the data were analyzed: safeguarding care, protecting integrity, and optimizing the environment. Discussion and conclusion: Health professionals balanced on a thin line between care and integrity when met with resistance from person with dementia. However, the trust-building interventions used in the most challenging situations did not differ from the interventions used in general in dementia care. Two knowledge gaps were identified: how to perform appropriate assessments of situations of home-dwelling persons with dementia when met with resistance to care, and whether environmental initiatives may also benefit home-dwelling persons with dementia who are not easily cared for. (shrink)

Background Physical morbidity is rife among patients with serious mental illness. When they are involuntarily hospitalized and even treated, they may still refuse treatment for physical illness leading clinicians to wonder about the ethics of coercing such treatments. Research aim This survey study explored psychiatric caregivers’ perceptions on whether compulsory treatment of physical illness is legal and whether it is justifiable in patients with serious mental illness and under what circumstances. Research design A questionnaire that included two case vignettes of (...) an involuntarily hospitalized psychiatric patient with diabetes refusing treatment with insulin for various reasons. The cases differed in terms of diabetes severity. Participants answered questions regarding the appropriateness of involuntary treatment. Participants and research context Psychiatric medical doctors and nurses working in a mental health center. ( N = 89, 50 female, ages 26–66). Ethical considerations The study was approved by the Medical Centre Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the University Ethics Committee. The respondents’ anonymity was kept. Participation was voluntary and consent was obtained. Results The severity of the patient’s medical condition and their reason for refusing treatment were associated with participants’ willingness to give insulin despite patient objection [( F(1, 87) = 49.41, p <.01; ( F(1, 87) = 33.44, p <.01), respectively]. Participants were more inclined to support compulsory treatment if the patient’s refusal was “illness-oriented” (i.e. directly related to psychiatric illness). Participants presented diverse views regarding the perceived legality of compulsory treatment of physical illness in such situations (illegal 63.09%; legal 23.8%; 13% unsure). The majority (53.5%–55.3%) of those who thought it was illegal supported compulsory treatment in high-severity, illness-oriented refusal situations. Conclusions The severity of the medical condition and the reason for treatment refusal influence psychiatric caregivers’ willingness to provide compulsory treatment for physical illness in involuntary hospitalized psychiatric patients. Beyond the legal framework, ethical guidelines for these situations are warranted, while decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. (shrink)