Access to Psychotherapy Notes: Review of Legal Standards for Mental Health Clinicians.

Patients' access to their psychotherapy records may be assumed to be well protected; however, the matter is intricately regulated. In fact, the statutes and rights pertaining to patient access to psychotherapy notes vary across states. Taken together, federal and state laws indirectly and inconsistently delineate lawful access-as well as clinical exceptions to providing access-to psychotherapy notes. Federal law defers to state laws when the latter afford individuals greater access to their notes. Both federal and individual state levels vary in providing for possible conditions under which access may be restricted. Right of access to psychotherapy notes is a matter of importance for all mental health clinicians in the United States. Awareness and integration of pertinent laws and regulations allow clinicians to manage such matters without a negative impact on their clinical care. Further consideration of how clinical practice interacts with other dimensions of health care administration (clinical, ethical, and legal) may serve to enhance the integrity of a clinician's work and the ability to adapt to difficult clinical circumstances with confidence.

Death of the suicide law: A changing standard of liability for clinicians.

High rates of suicide continue to plague the modern world, with clinicians, researchers, and policymakers working urgently to ameliorate what has been recognized as a worldwide public health crisis. Under American Law, individuals- including health care providers, could generally not be held liable for causing the suicide of another person. This article presents a review of suicide law in the United States in the context of a recent civil case in which a physician with expertise in mental health was sued for the death of an ex-partner who committed suicide in his home. Historical events and landmark legal cases spanning the 15th century to now are examined and presented as a narrative review to inform society and mental health clinicians a-like towards interpreting the changing medical-legal landscape. As modern advances in science continue to discern the critical biopsychosocial factors that contribute to the act of suicide, there is an inevitably growing concern that suicide may no longer be an incomprehensible nor irrational event as has been assumed for centuries. Thus, it may be considered that individual with expertise and qualification to treat a group of individuals at higher risk of suicide (severe mental illness) may be subject to a different standard than the average individual. This article seeks to present a complex matter where no simple or broad-sweeping conclusions can yet be drawn, however remains a critically important matter for mental health clinicians.

The Law and Practice of Off-Label Prescribing and Physician Promotion.

Prescription of medications for off-label indications is an increasingly common practice; recent events highlight such prescribing as one of the cornerstones of evolving clinical treatment. Clinicians are afforded substantial deference in prescribing practices and other treatments falling within the realm of the actual practice of medicine, including prescribing for off-label indications. Yet clinicians are not necessarily free to promote a medication for the same off-label indication they may have just prescribed for a patient. While trends in jurisprudence appear to be favoring clinicians' freedom to promote prescription medication for any use, in a majority of jurisdictions, the U.S. government can still bring considerable weight to bear on clinicians promoting off-label uses of prescription medications. We review the relevant laws and regulations pertaining to off-label prescription and promotion, as well as the possible legal consequences. The regulations pertaining to physician and pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding off-label drug use are complex. Suggestions are provided to help physicians better navigate the medical-legal landscape when prescribing or promoting medications for off-label use. Physician mindfulness to pertinent legal precedents will allow them to prescribe and promote medications with a higher level of critical reasoning to optimize care and reduce risk.

Steroid-Induced Psychosis in the Pediatric Population: A New Case and Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVES: Iatrogenic steroid-induced psychosis is a rare but serious adverse side effect seen largely in the adult population that less commonly affects children and adolescents. Given the significant distress steroid-induced psychosis may cause, recommendations are needed for effective management. Here we conducted a systematic review of the literature and report a new case of steroid-induced psychosis in a 12-year-old patient. METHODS: We performed a systematic search using Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and PsychInfo. Key terms included ("steroid induced" or "corticosteroid induced" or "glucocorticoid induced") and ("psychosis" or "hallucinations" or "delusions") and ("child" or "adolescent" or "pediatric"). A total of 15 articles of steroid-induced psychosis in children and adolescents were found in the scientific literature. This report includes those articles and a novel case of steroid-induced psychosis. RESULTS: Children with asthma, autoimmune diseases, and cancer have been reported to experience steroid-induced psychosis. The mean age of children with steroid-induced psychosis was 12 ± 3.6 years. Our team presents a report of steroid-induced psychosis in a 12-year-old patient with discoid-type lupus erythematosus. Within days of treatment with 40 mg prednisone daily, this patient began to drool, became mute, and was responding to internal stimuli. Treatment was difficult secondary to the acute exacerbation of lupus, requiring ongoing therapy. It was initially unclear whether the acute psychosis was a manifestation of lupus, a side effect of medication, or a combination of the two risk factors. Neurology consultation ruled out lupus cerebritis. Psychosis was treated with haloperidol 5 mg. Psychosis did not resolve until the steroid taper was complete and the patient was no longer taking any prednisone. CONCLUSIONS: Given the common use of glucocorticoid therapy in children, it is important that physicians and parents recognize the signs of steroid-induced psychosis and are aware of the data on treating this complication.

Improving Mental Health Services Through Physician Assistants: Legislation in Several Southern States.

A national effort to provide more expansive mental health care in the United States has been an increasing priority during the last decade. States have enacted laws that allow for the delegation of psychiatric services to physician assistants in an effort to address the shortage and geographic maldistribution of mental health services and to more efficiently use the skills of psychiatrists. This statutory scheme recognizing physician assistants has been effective in broadening access to mental health care in various southern states. It also has, however, imposed certain risks and responsibilities upon psychiatrists who choose to supervise physician assistants. Understanding the regulatory responsibilities imposed upon supervising psychiatrists and anticipating the risks associated with supervising a physician assistant are important in avoiding grave financial consequences and the difficulties associated with litigation. Here, we review the statutory responsibilities imposed upon the psychiatrists supervising physician assistants across various southern states and to discuss the risk of vicarious liability of the psychiatrists for the actions of the physician assistants.

Examining Tennessee's collateral source rule.

The common law collateral source rule was established to prevent the defendant from benefiting from their wrongful actions. Despite a trend in the United States to limit the effects of the collateral source rule, the rule remains in force in courts of the State of Tennessee. However, to assist with the malpractice crisis, the legislature prohibited this rule by statute in regards to the Medical Malpractice Act. Although this statutory prohibition of the collateral source rule worked to lessen verdicts in malpractice cases after passage, the availability of consortium damages resulting from Jordan v. Baptist Three Rivers Hospital in 1999 has worked to drive verdicts substantially higher. Regardless the Medical Malpractice Act has been held as constitutional and has been clarified through several recent Tennessee court decisions.

Duration of Untreated Psychosis, Referral Route, and Age of Onset in an Early Intervention in Psychosis Service and a Local CAMHS.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate associations between demographic and clinical variables and duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) in a sample of cases of psychosis across an adult early intervention in psychosis service and a child and adolescent community team. METHOD: Cross-sectional baseline data for cases of psychosis across the two teams on the caseload at a given time point were collected, including age of onset, gender, ethnicity, referral route, and DUP. RESULTS: The median DUP across the entire sample was 91 days, while those patients with initial treatment for psychosis from the child and adolescent team had a median DUP of 69 days. Using multiple linear regression, there were two variables that showed a significant association with DUP: referral route (p < .001), and age of onset, with earlier age of onset associated with shorter DUP (p = .015). CONCLUSION: These findings are discussed in relation to possible explanatory factors, with particular focus on service-level variables and pathways to care. It is suggested that the involvement of child and adolescent teams is vital to the work of early intervention in psychosis services.

Medical malpractice and respondeat superior.

The legal concept of vicarious liability and the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior occurs when the servant (employee) commits a tort or civil wrong within the scope of employment and the master (employer) is held liable although the master may have done nothing wrong. In this article, legal cases are presented to emphasize the importance of these issues, which frequently involve physician extenders and physicians as employers in our current health care climate. Physicians need to be aware of this doctrine in the supervision of their staff and their day-to-day medical practice.

Health care providers' duty to warn.

Since the fifth century BC, physicians have sworn to uphold the Hippocratic Oath that includes the statement, "Whatever, in connection with my professional service, ... I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret." However, health care and provider responsibility have evolved so as to make this more difficult for physicians to uphold. We discuss growing issues surrounding health care providers' ability to maintain patient confidentiality and to perform their responsibilities, and their "duty to warn and/or protect" third parties. Particular Tennessee cases heard on appeal show a change in the health care enviromnent relative to provider liability to third parties.