Residence Conditions on Community Treatment Orders

Abstract

French

Objective:

To identify the clinical reasons and legal authority for including a residential placement condition in a community treatment order (CTO).

Method:

We describe the clinical reasons for imposing a residence condition and discuss how this is authorized by the laws of the Canadian provinces (using Ontario as the main example).

Results:

A residence condition can facilitate numerous benefits, including: regular access to a person by a clinical team; continuing therapeutic relations; supervision of medication; provision of general medical care; and reduction in substance use, risks of victimization, and other unintended harm. A resident condition can be lawfully imposed when it clearly fits the purposes of the CTO legislation and stops short of authorizing detention in a community facility.

Conclusions:

In certain circumstances, a residence condition is clinically justified and a lawful aspect of a CTO.

Keywords

residential placement supported accommodation community treatment order outpatient commitment mental health legislation

References

Rugkåsa

Dawson

Burns

CTOs: What is the state of the evidence?

Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014;49(12):1861–1871.

Kisely

Hall

An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled evidence for the effectiveness of community treatment orders. Can J Psychiatry. 2014;59(10):561–564.

Goering

Veldhuizen

Watson

, National final report: Cross-site At Home/Chez soi project. Calgary (AB): Mental Health Commission of Canada; 2014. Available from: http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca.

Baker

Douglas

Housing environments and community adjustment of severely mentally ill persons. Community Ment Health J. 1990;26(6):492–505.

Newman

. Housing attributes and serious mental illness: Implications for research and practice. Psychiatr Serv. 2001;52(10):1309–1317.

Saha

Chant

McGrath

A systematic review of mortality in schizophrenia: Is the differential mortality gap worsening over time?

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(10):1123–1131.

Kisely

Cox

Smith

, Inequitable access for mentally ill patients to some medically necessary procedures. CMAJ. 2007;176(6):779–784.

Segal

Burgess

. Effect of conditional release from hospital on mortality risk. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57(11):1607–1613.

Kisely

Preston

Xiao

, Reducing all-cause mortality among patients with psychiatric disorders: A population-based study. CMAJ. 2013;185(1):E50–E56.

10.

O'Reilly

Brooks

Chaimowitz

, Mandatory outpatient treatment [CPA position paper]. Can J Psychiatry. 2010;55(6 Insert 1):1–7. Available from: http://publications.cpa-apc.org/media.php?mid=912.

11.

Mental Health Services Act, S.S., c. M-13, section 24(3)(1)(d.1), as amended by Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Mental Health Services Act, 2014.

12.

Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, section 33.7.

13.

Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment Act, 2005, S.N.S. 2005, c. 42, section 48(b).

14.

Mental Health Care and Treatment Act, S.N.L. 2006, c. M-9.1, section 40(2).

15.

Mental Health Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-13, section 9.1(2).

16.

Health Care Consent Act, 1996, R.S.O. 1996, c. 2, section 2.

17.

In the matter of MGB. Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) (2003) n.14360 (ON, CCB).

18.

Nakhost

Perry

Frank

Assessing the outcome of compulsory treatment orders on management of psychiatric patients at 2 McGill University-associated hospitals. Can J Psychiatry. 2012;57(6):359–365.

19.

Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, section 33.1(9) and 33.3(1).

20.

Dawson

The law of emergency psychiatric detention. N Z Law Rev. 1999;2:275–303.

21.

Health Care Consent Act 1996, R.S.O. 1996, c. 2, section 7.

22.

Guzzardi v Italy (Application no. 7367/76) (1980) ECHR 5.

23.

Pleso v Hungary (Application no. 41242/08) (2012) ECHR 1767.