[The imminent peril in the law of July the fifth 2011, two years later: the impact on health?].

In 1938, the French government decided to enact a first legislation to enforce admission of the mentally ill to hospitals. Later in 1990, the law took into consideration the evolution of practices with an increase of free admissions and the right to maintain the mentally ill in cities. Three types of psychiatric hospitalization were defined: free, on third party request and for involuntary confinement. A review had theoretically to be conducted every 5 years. In practice this was not the case, probably due to the balance between individual freedom, patient care and public safety always hard to find. However, considering the imperative European harmonization and the fact the Constitutional Council declared a double unconstitutionality of the law, the Act of July 5th was enacted in a hurry during the summer 2011. The Act defines the "rights and the protection of people subject to psychiatric care and methods of coverage". In this document, we will briefly review the context of this law. We will also explore the clinical implications of the very innovative measure: the "péril imminent". We will use the admissions at the Sainte-Anne hospital in Paris in 2010 to 2012. Three major key points were introduced in the law: a judge controls an agreeable release after 15 days and 6 months of continuous hospitalization. The law let the new possibility to provide ambulatory cares under constraints, and these to make an involuntary confinement without a third party request, using the "imminent peril". This law implies the involvement of the judge and the lawyer. This one has to defend a client who needs care, he controls the formal validity of decisions concerning the patient. To provide treatment without consent in "imminent peril" to someone, conditions are requested: these mental disorders make his consent impossible and his mental state requires immediate care with immediate care of constant medical monitoring justifying a full hospitalization or regular medical monitoring for support under another form of full hospitalization (Article L.3212. 1 of the Code of Public Health). Moreover, a demand for care by a third party has also to be impossible to obtain and an imminent peril to the person's health has to exist, supported by a medical certificate from a doctor who does not belong to the patient's psychiatric hospital. The imminent peril would be an immediate danger to the health or life of the patient. What has been the impact of this law adopted in emergency at Sainte-Anne hospital? This psychiatric hospital is in charge of the population in southern Paris, where reside about 655,000 people. This work observes the evolution of the type of hospitalization and care before and after the adoption of the law. We can observe an overall increase in entries under constraints. There is a decrease in admissions for involuntary confinement for the benefit of imminent peril. This imminent peril corresponds to only a small proportion of hospitalizations without consent but are rising between 2011 and 2012, perhaps in part due to a better understanding of the law. But this progression is to monitor to ensure compliance with the restrictive conditions laid down by this law. Also note that the imminent peril may be used at the refusal of the family or entourage to make the demand for care. The number of hospitalizations at the request of a third party with two certificates is down, which is probably due to a change in status of the CPOA, emergency structure within Sainte-Anne, which is no longer seen as extraterritorial. The imminent peril has advantages: it allows access to the care of people isolated and desocialized, of people whose identity is unknown, of pathological travellers. It avoids hospitalization at the request of the representative of the State for social reasons and not for risks to the safety of persons, even when this type of hospitalization is more stigmatizing and often more difficult to remove. It protects the entourage sometimes, when the family is ambivalent or hostile to care, or has been designated as a persecutor. The imminent peril also has disadvantages. One of them is the risk of its misuse to allow rapid hospitalization without taking the time to seek a third party. The imminent danger made when there is an entourage but which refuses to request care can undermine the development work on information about the disease, the need for care and treatment and the importance of the involvement of the entourage in the care plan. The alliance with the patient may be compromised. In some cases, a decision of care by the request of the representative of the State is more appropriate than the "imminent peril". The "imminent peril" may be preferred because of the administrative burden of prefectural measures when patient presents clinical improvement and we would go up to the ambulatory care in a care program. Yet, the use of a symbolic third, carrying authority, can avoid the too direct confrontation with the patient. Do not use it can complicate the management of the patient. Finally, with desocialized patients, imminent peril can facilitate access to care, but not continuity of care. Indeed, for the care program it is necessary to have an address for the patient. Once the crisis is not to develop a plan of care. Finally in some situations of desocialized patients, the imminent peril can promote access to care but not the continuity of care as to the care program it is necessary to have an address for the patient. Once the crisis is past, it is impossible to implement a program of care. The Law of 5 July 2011 marks a change in the practice of psychiatrists. Take into account the fundamental rights of the patient and to harmonize legislation at EU level was necessary. Some measures are designed to promote access to care as the "imminent peril", we now need to be vigilant to ensure that it is not diverted to promote an increase in care under constraints and that psychiatrists remain in an obligation of means and not of result.