I think that you did what you could, and also know that this option is not an adequate one and we need alternatives that are healthier for provider and patient alike. Luckily there are some, they just are not yet wide spread. I'm working a bit in policy attempting to get more funding and better policies that are mission based and not compliance based so that the models can stay functional. I'm going to expound on some of them below.
​
I am a psychotherapist and involved community organizing, policy and research as well as have lived experience. I did not find hospitalization helpful for myself when I was young - I really needed people to accept that I was suffering and help me recover. Instead I got meds and a hopeless diagnosis and told to attend endless group programs. It made me much sicker as hopelessness and disease identity took hold. It took me rejecting treatment and finding peer support to get out of the rut - and eventually I was able to find much more ethical treatment with a psychiatrist who listened and wanted to know my life and changed RX every time I wanted to because I didn't like the side effects and a therapist who does not treat diagnosis - but rather treats the adverse experiences and losses that underlie it. Once I recovered, I went back to school and got 3 degrees and started in direct service and branched out into program design and policy.
​
In some areas there are peer run respite centers that are far better than traditional hospitalizations. A person can stay connected to the outside world, there is peer counseling 24-hours per day. Every thing that happens is consensual and guided by peers who have been through serious mental health and emotional health issues. People who go there are invited to do a wellness recovery action plan, a plan for what to do when crisis situations occur and who they want to help, a living advanced directive, and an aspirational plan. There are no formal clinical assessments. The peer staff and people who are attending cook together and share meals together. The majority of clients I have worked with who need hospitalization, when I explain what a peer respite is to them they have all been willing to go instead of needing to utilize forced hospitalization. https://www.peerrespite.com/ There aren't yet long term effects of this intervention as the outpatient infrastructure is still mostly professionally designed and implemented without direction from peers, so it hasn't much moved to more recovery oriented practice even if they use buzz words like "person centered" "recovery oriented" "recovery model" etc. If peers aren't involved in design and implementation and long term evaluation, the programs fall into the dominant paradigm.
​
In my opinion the medical model of psychiatric hospitalization in all intents and purposes is no longer supportive of recovery. In the USA there is no longer a psychotherapy component in almost all inpatient hospitals. The Social workers function as case managers and the psychiatrist as prescribers. It has taken out the human element of care - and burns out both patient and staff. There's an amazing book by the Michael Garrett MD who runs SUNY Downstate inpatient psychiatric in Brooklyn, NY, USA called Psychotherapy for Psychosis. Though most of the book is a guide to learn and implement psychotherpay into practice in all settings andrealms of intervention, There are a few chapters dedicated to constructive criticism of our current mental health and hospital systems and what we can do to change it. He uses a combination of CBT and psychoanalysis to treat patients with success and foster resolution of psychotic experiences even in those who have had these experiences chronically for many years. He will still employ medication for those who continue to have some break through issues, but the dosages of medication they need after effective psychotherapy is very low because the psychotherapy has aided in resolving much of the reasons why their psychosis was perpetuating itself.
​
​
https://www.getselfhelp.co.uk/docs/WRAP.pdf
https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/mental-capacity-act-2005/advance-decisions/
​
These are some of the types of programs and interventions that have been co-designed that work quite well, but they are offered very sparcely and some of these are only offered privately for private pay, which excludes people and families living through the much more difficult issues.
​
Open Dialogue is a therapy that treats the person in environment. It uses a reflective psychological approach that was designed by psychiatrists and peers after a large increase of schizophrenia diagnosis' in Finland and the lack of recovery from the mainstream interventions. https://open-dialogue.net/
​
Hearing Voices Network is a group based model designed by psychiatrist and peers that supports patients to work with their voices in a more positive manner, to better understand themselves and to foster community. The method is more accepting of voices instead of trying to ignore or suppress them - and works with them as most patients will continue to have voices with or without medications. https://www.hearing-voices.org/
​
Fireweed Collective (formerly the Icarus Project) is an advocacy and peer support movement for acceptance of neurodiversity and using experiences to create community, art, music and form a more accepting world. This is completely peer run and many of the folks in it have had bad experiences of invalidation from the psychiatric/psychological communities. https://fireweedcollective.org/
​
Institute for the Development of the Human Arts is a peer and professional partnership to design a new paradigm of trainings and create community among professionals and peer advocates. https://www.idha-nyc.org/
​
I also have a lot more resources that are making great positive change to the field. In we don't have to settle for the models that are not working well. Yes involuntary hospitalization for violence issues will still need to happen, but for most people there are other interventions that are better. We just have to advocate for more of them, because there are so few that it cannot impact social change and policy yet.