Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A qualitative study of clinicians' perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in British Columbia, Canada.
Cheung, Iva W; Silva, Diego S; Miller, Kimberly J; Michalak, Erin E; Goldsmith, Charles H.
Afiliación
  • Cheung IW; Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
  • Silva DS; Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Miller KJ; Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
  • Michalak EE; BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  • Goldsmith CH; Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0247268, 2021.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33735273
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

In British Columbia (BC), Canada, clinicians are responsible for giving involuntary psychiatric patients rights information upon admission. Yet an investigation by the BC Office of the Ombudsperson found that clinicians are not always fulfilling this responsibility. The Ombudsperson recommended that the provincial government fund an independent body to give rights advice to patients.

METHODS:

To understand how clinicians feel about this recommendation, focus groups of clinicians who may give psychiatric patients rights information (n = 81) were conducted in Vancouver, BC, to probe their attitudes toward independent rights advisors. The focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS:

Most clinicians believe that giving rights information is within their scope of practice, although some acknowledge that it poses a conflict of interest when the patient wishes to challenge the treatment team's decisions. Participants' chief concerns about an independent rights-advice service were that (a) patients may experience a delay in receiving their rights information, (b) integrating rights advisors into the workflow would complicate an already chaotic admission process, and (c) more patients would be counselled to challenge their hospitalization, leading to an increased administrative workload for clinical staff. However, many participants believed that independent rights advisors would be a positive addition to the admission process, both allowing clinicians to focus on treatment and serving as a source of rights-related information.

CONCLUSIONS:

Participants were generally amenable to an independent rights-advice service, suggesting that the introduction of rights advisors need not result in an adversarial relationship between treatment team and patient, as opponents of the proposal fear. Clearly distinguishing between basic rights information and in-depth rights advice could address several of the clinicians' concerns about the role that independent rights advisors would play in the involuntary admission process. Clinicians' and other stakeholders' concerns should be considered as the province develops its rights-advice service.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Relaciones Profesional-Paciente / Personal de Salud / Enfermos Mentales Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Asunto de la revista: CIENCIA / MEDICINA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Canadá

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Relaciones Profesional-Paciente / Personal de Salud / Enfermos Mentales Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Asunto de la revista: CIENCIA / MEDICINA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Canadá
...