Public Disclosure on Social Media of Identifiable Patient Information by Health Professionals: Content Analysis of Twitter Data.

BACKGROUND: Respecting patient privacy and confidentiality is critical for doctor-patient relationships and public trust in medical professionals. The frequency of potentially identifiable disclosures online during periods of active engagement is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantify potentially identifiable content shared on social media by physicians and other health care providers using the hashtag #ShareAStoryInOneTweet. METHODS: We accessed and searched Twitter's API using Symplur software for tweets that included the hashtag #ShareAStoryInOneTweet. We identified 1206 tweets by doctors, nurses, and other health professionals out of 43,374 tweets shared in May 2018. Tweet content was evaluated in January 2019 to determine the incidence of instances where names or potentially identifiable information about patients were shared; content analysis of tweets in which information about others had been disclosed was performed. The study also evaluated whether participants raised concerns about privacy breaches and estimated the frequency of deleted tweets. The study used dual, blinded coding for a 10% sample to estimate intercoder reliability using Cohen κ statistic for identifying the potential identifiability of tweet content. RESULTS: Health care professionals (n=656) disclosing information about others included 486 doctors (74.1%) and 98 nurses (14.9%). Health care professionals sharing stories about patient care disclosed the time frame in 95 tweets (95/754, 12.6%) and included patient names in 15 tweets (15/754, 2.0%). It is estimated that friends or families could likely identify the clinical scenario described in 242 of the 754 tweets (32.1%). Among 348 tweets about potentially living patients, it was estimated that 162 (46.6%) were likely identifiable by patients. Intercoder reliability in rating the potential identifiability demonstrated 86.8% agreement, with a Cohen κ of 0.8 suggesting substantial agreement. We also identified 78 out of 754 tweets (6.5%) that had been deleted on the website but were still viewable in the analytics software data set. CONCLUSIONS: During periods of active sharing online, nurses, physicians, and other health professionals may sometimes share more information than patients or families might expect. More study is needed to determine whether similar events arise frequently and to understand how to best ensure that patients' rights are adequately respected.

Treatment Delayed is Treatment Denied.

The past few decades have witnessed the steady development of a mental health jurisprudence dedicated to the preservation of human rights. Self-determination and personal autonomy are critical aspects of this perspective, pervading every facet of institutional psychiatric care. Of considerable concern, however, are those cases in which rote procedural approaches produce unintended consequences for the very persons such maneuvers were designed to protect. Delays-inherent in court-based procedures-may ironically lead to an acute illness becoming chronic, and to a single bout of inpatient services being transformed into a lifetime of revolving-door psychiatric admissions. This discussion is not about lawyers or lawyering; rather, it is about the proposition that a better system can and should be devised for advocates who must make do with the options they are dealt. A particularly problematic example is the "Rogers Guardianship" model currently prevalent in Massachusetts. Laws that effectively place on counsel and courts the challenge of second-guessing medical treatment decisions-with minimal latitude for counsel to exercise measured professional judgment-will inevitably generate, and empirically do generate, a degree of delay that ironically deprives patients of the liberation from illness that is the common goal of all stakeholders. Possible solutions to these difficulties are also suggested.

A Proposed Model for Assessing Defendant Competence to Self-Represent.

The increasing number of criminal defendants who are choosing to self-represent poses special challenges for legal systems with regard to the types of limits that should be placed on a defendant's basic human right to defend himself without the assistance of counsel. While courts strive to respect the dignity and autonomy of the defendant that are encompassed in this right, they also want to ensure that justice is delivered and the dignity of the courtroom is maintained. The Supreme Court of the United States, in its opinion in Indiana v. Edwards (2008), held that while the right to self-represent recognized in Faretta v. California (1975) remains, states and trial judges can place limits on a defendant's right to self-representation when a defendant lacks the mental capacities needed to prepare and conduct an adequate defense. Following the court's lead, we first examine the types and range of tasks that a defendant who chooses to self-represent must perform. Based on this analysis, we propose a five-part model that forensic practitioners can use as a conceptual framework for assessing whether a defendant has deficits that would affect his competence to perform critical self-representation tasks. The five areas that the model recommends practitioners assess are whether a defendant can engage in goal-directed behaviors, has sufficient communication skills, can engage in constructive social intercourse, can control his emotions in an adversarial arena, and has the cognitive abilities needed to argue his case adequately. It is recommended that practitioners use the model in their testimony to provide the trier of fact with a comprehensive report of the areas in which a defendant has deficits that will prevent him from protecting his interests in receiving a fair and equitable trial.

Forty-Five Years of Civil Litigation Against Canadian Psychiatrists: An Empirical Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: To extract the themes pertaining to prudent psychiatric practice from written court judgments in Canada. METHODS: We searched the medical and legal literature for cases involving civil litigation against Canadian psychiatrist and reviewed all available written judgments. We completed a thematic analysis of the civil actions against psychiatrists as conveyed by those written court judgments. We classified the cases according to the disposal status and the essential lessons from the decisions on standard of care and practice by Canadian psychiatrists. RESULTS: Forty such cases were identified as involving psychiatrists over a 45-year period. A subgroup included those dealing with limitation periods and disclosure applications. Thirty of the 40 cases (75%) were decided in favour of the defendant psychiatrists, including 2 dismissed for running over the limitation period. The cases that actually went to trial suggest that documentation and obtaining second opinions are protective against claims of negligence. Inpatient cases resulting in successful litigation against psychiatrists involved fatal outcomes, but not all fatal outcomes led to successful litigation. CONCLUSIONS: The key lessons from these cases are the importance and relevance of regular best clinical practices, such as documentation, obtaining second opinions, following guidelines, and balancing competencies in the expert and manager or advocate roles. Incorporating these practices should allay concerns about litigation against psychiatrists.

Comparative study of forensic psychiatric system between China and America.

Laws and regulations about the forensic psychiatric systems in China and America were compared, and suggestions for improving the forensic psychiatric system of China were provided. There are many differences regarding the role of the forensic psychiatrist, the initiation of the assessment and the admission of expert opinion because of elements in the legal systems in China and America. The Chinese system has the advantages of objectivity, cost saving and high efficiency; but it has deficiencies in procedural justice and the admission of expert opinion. China can persist with the current system while taking measures to give more rights to the litigants to participate in their assessment, and while improving the quality and utility of the expert opinion; however, this review article will compare broadly the two systems without addressing human rights issues or procedural justice issues, nor will it presume to address the entirety of Chinese systems. In addition, China is developing its legal system for dealing with the mentally ill defendant in situations involving the criminal justice system and civil commitment. Although China enacted new laws regarding the mandatory treatment for the mentally ill, both in criminal and civil systems, there remain many aspects to be improved, including but not limited to a system of review of the decision to detain a patient on psychiatric grounds, and the need for provisions in the laws preventing indefinite detention. From this viewpoint, America's laws and regulations are instructive for us, in matters such as the method of dealing with the mentally ill defendant who is "incompetent to stand trial", "not guilty only by reason of insanity" or "guilty but mentally ill". The conditional release of the committed mentally ill person and the special programs in the forensic security hospital are all worthy of study by China in order to manage the mentally ill offender and to reduce the recidivism rate.

Sudden discovery of a previous nonclinical relationship with a potential patient: implications for subsequent psychiatric treatment.

Suddenly encountering a patient who happens to be a person with whom a therapist has had a previous nonclinical relationship poses special problems for both the therapist and patient. The problems--including countertransference issues, dual relationships, and other concerns surrounding subsequent therapy--are discussed in this column through the use of examples. The authors conclude that the potential disadvantages of treating such patients outweigh any advantages that might come from previous relationships. The consequent recommendation is that such patients be referred to other clinicians.

Deposition dos and don'ts: strategies for the expert witness.

The deposition is an important stage in the legal process, which poses special challenges for the deponent. This article reviews those challenges from the standpoint of the expert witness, addressing the stages of the deposition, the deposing attorney's strategies, the role and goals of the expert witness serving as the deponent, the approach to answering the attorney's questions, strategies for clarifying or reframing those questions, and the approaches to reviewing the deposition after the transcript has been printed. The article emphasizes tricks and traps used by the deposing attorney and how to avoid them.

Reflections on ethical issues in psychopharmacology: an American perspective.

Psychopharmacology has revolutionized psychiatric practice but raises a number of ethical issues. This review from an American perspective first describes ethics analyses and attempts to portray the ethical practitioner. Pressures that interfere with appropriate prescribing come from outside the prescriber and from within, including from insurers, other treatment staff and the prescriber's own will to act for the patient. Clinicians also face binds in which alternate choices seem to have merit and leave the prescriber feeling pulled in contradictory directions, frequently related to risk-benefit dilemmas. The ethics of psychopharmacology poses many questions that cannot yet be answered at the current state of the field. Pharmacology also seems to promote extremes of attitudes, such as "All such drugs are poisons" and the like. This review then provides some risk management principles, and concludes that such a review, though not comprehensive, may serve to open questions that are not always considered by clinicians.

Treating a physician patient with psychosis.

The authors present a case of a psychotic female patient who is a former graduate of a locally prestigious medical school and has subsequently been diagnosed with schizophrenia. The patient entered treatment in an outpatient clinic following discharge from her 11th hospitalization. This hospitalization was initiated after the patient's physician friend had called the police and notified them that the patient was significantly disorganized to warrant further evaluation. Treatment was characterized by significant transference and counter-transference reactions amongst her clinicians - both treatment-promoting and treatment-interfering - based on her status as a physician. The problem of insight was a significant hurdle in the treatment of the patient as her medical knowledge of mental illness was substantially greater than her insight into her own mental illness. Throughout treatment, a number of medical-legal and ethical issues arose. Initially, the question was raised as to the legality of the actions by the patient's friend-having made a clinical assessment without having a clinical role in the patient's care. As the patient's clinical status improved and she sought to re-enter the medical field as a resident, new medical legal issues surfaced. What were the roles of the patient's treaters in maintaining confidentiality and simultaneously ensuring the safety of patients that the psychotic physician might care for? This case highlights the universality of psychiatric vulnerability. Insight in psychosis as well as the transference and counter-transference issues involved in caring for a psychotic physician are discussed. Additionally, a thorough medical-legal discussion addresses the various complexities of caring for a psychotic physician.

Commentary: Tarasoff duties arising from a forensic independent medical examination.

The question of whether a Tarasoff duty may emerge from a credible threat by an examinee during an independent medical examination has not been extensively addressed in the professional literature. This article analyzes that question and provides suggestions for how to respond to a perceived duty.

"I can't let anything go:" A case study with psychological testing of a patient with pathologic hoarding.

Pathologic hoarding is a symptom generally recognized as related to obsessional dynamics (Gutheil, 1959). The hoarder cannot, without great anxiety, tolerate separation from or dispose of his possessions. Thus the hoarder accumulates vast amount of possessions, often in such amounts as to compromise freedom of movement in the residence. Popular in tabloid reportage, such news items portray persons found dead among floor-to-ceiling piles of old newspapers and similar detritus, while in actual clinical practice such dramatic cases are not common (Bryk, 2005; Duenwald, 2004). More importantly, such individuals are rarely available for psychological intervention or testing, both because of social isolation and injury or death caused by the hoarded materials. Additionally, a majority of the current literature regarding hoarding is linked with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), though other major disorders have been noted. This report describes a particular individual with characteristic features of hoarding, which is explored through formal psychological testing.

Sudden improvement among high-risk suicidal patients: should it be trusted?

There is a long-standing belief that patients with depression and suicidal tendencies are particularly vulnerable to suicide when their depression shows signs of improvement. The authors discuss the clinical challenges of distinguishing real from feigned signs of recovery. Whereas genuine clinical improvement is a process, sudden patient improvement is a suspect event. The authors discuss clinical indicators that distinguish the two. They emphasize the importance of gathering corroborating evidence through communications with staff and the patient's family. Suicide risk assessment is necessary throughout the patient's illness and recovery.

Psychologists abandon the Nuremberg ethic: concerns for detainee interrogations.

In the aftermath of 9-11, the American Psychological Association, one of the largest U.S. health professions, changed its ethics code so that it now runs counter to the Nuremberg Ethic. This historic post-9-11 change allows psychologists to set aside their ethical responsibilities whenever they are in irreconcilable conflict with military orders, governmental regulations, national and local laws, and other forms of governing legal authority. This article discusses the history, wording, rationale, and implications of the ethical standard that U.S. psychologists adopted 7 years ago, particularly in light of concerns over health care professionals' involvement in detainee interrogations and the controversy over psychologists' prominent involvement in settings like the Guantánamo Bay Detainment Camp and the Abu Ghraib prison. It discusses possible approaches to the complex dilemmas arising when ethical responsibilities conflict with laws, regulations, or other governing legal authority.

Common pitfalls in the evaluation of testamentary capacity.

The examination for testamentary capacity poses several unique challenges to the forensic evaluator, especially when performed, as is often the case, postmortem. Forensic experience reveals that a series of common pitfalls awaits the unwary witness. This brief review identifies the more common pitfalls and suggests how to avoid them.