RESUMEN

An extreme overvalued belief is shared by others in a person's cultural, religious, or subcultural group. The belief is often relished, amplified, and defended by the possessor of the belief and should be differentiated from a delusion or obsession. Over time, the belief grows more dominant, more refined, and more resistant to challenge. The individual has an intense emotional commitment to the belief and may carry out violent behavior in its service. Study participants (n = 109 forensic psychiatrists) were asked to select among three definitions (i.e., obsession, delusion, and extreme overvalued belief) as the motive for the criminal behavior seen in 12 randomized fictional vignettes. Strong interrater agreement (kappa = 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-0.98]) was seen for vignettes representing extreme overvalued belief. Vignettes representing delusion and obsession also had strong reliability (kappa = 0.99 for delusion and 0.98 for obsession). This preliminary report suggests that forensic psychiatrists, given proper definitions, possess a substantial ability to identify delusion, obsession, and extreme overvalued belief. The rich historical foundation of extreme overvalued belief and this small survey study highlight the benefit of inclusion of "extreme overvalued belief" in future glossaries of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Full Document: Alonso-Katzowitz JS, Cardasis W, Cerny-Suelzer CA, et al: Practice Resource for Forensic Training in General Psychiatry Residency Programs. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Supplement 2019, 47 (1). Available at: http://www.jaapl.org/content/47/1_Supplement.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The purpose of the study was to determine how often Maryland judges agreed with the opinions of forensic evaluators in deciding whether to transfer youthful defendants to juvenile court from adult court and to investigate which factors were most important in the opinions of the evaluators and the final decisions of the judges. Data were extracted from a sample of 200 waiver evaluations, and case outcomes were determined. Factors were examined with both univariate analysis and logistic regression models, to find correlates to and predictors of judges' decisions and evaluators' opinions. The most important factor influencing the decision of the judges was the forensic evaluators' opinions. Logistic regression analysis identified three factors that were significant predictors of the evaluator's opinion: public safety risk, history of the involvement of Department of Juvenile Services, and defendant's age at the time of the offense. The judges' decisions correlated strongly with the forensic evaluators' opinions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In 1995, the Joint Commission began requiring that hospitals report reviewable sentinel events as a condition of maintaining accreditation. Since then, inpatient suicide has been the second most common sentinel event reported to the Joint Commission. The Joint Commission emphasizes the need for around-the-clock observation for inpatients assessed as at high risk for suicide. However, there is sparse literature on the observation of psychiatric patients and no systematic studies or recommendations for best practices. Medical errors can best be reduced by focusing on systems improvements rather than individual provider mistakes. The author describes how failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) was used proactively by an inpatient psychiatric treatment team to improve psychiatric observation practices by identifying and correcting potential observation process failures. Collection and implementation of observation risk reduction strategies across health care systems is needed to identify best practices and to reduce inpatient suicides.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This resource document discusses the use of seclusion or restraint for purposes of mental health intervention in correctional facilities. Correctional mental health standards essentially state that seclusion or restraint, when used for health care purposes, should be implemented in a manner consistent with current community practice. The community practice was significantly impacted and revised during July 1999, after the Health Care Financing Administration defined rules for the use of seclusion and restraint in facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. Since few correctional facilities are Medicare or Medicaid participants, these rules had little impact on the use of seclusion or restraint for mental health care purposes in correctional systems. Consequently, many correctional health care systems have not developed policies, procedures, or practices that are consistent with current community practice. This document provides guidance in remedying such problems, with a focus on areas relevant to timeframes, settings, and monitoring.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Police interrogators routinely use deceptive techniques to obtain confessions from criminal suspects. The United States Executive Branch has attempted to justify coercive interrogation techniques in which physical or mental pain and suffering may be used during intelligence interrogations of persons labeled unlawful combatants. It may be appropriate for law enforcement, military, or intelligence personnel who are not physicians to use such techniques. However, forensic psychiatry ethical practice requires honesty, striving for objectivity, and respect for persons. Deceptive and coercive interrogation techniques violate these moral values. When a psychiatrist directly uses, works with others who use, or trains others to use deceptive or coercive techniques to obtain information in police, military, or intelligence interrogations, the psychiatrist breaches basic principles of ethics.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In Maryland, any citizen may petition to have individuals brought against their will for an examination by a physician. In this retrospective chart review, we evaluated the characteristics of 300 persons referred to the Johns Hopkins Hospital on emergency petitions. Sixty-one percent of petitions described individuals who made verbal or physical threats of self-harm. Forty-seven percent of the petitions described individuals who could have been arrested based on dangerousness to others or property, but were instead diverted to the emergency room for psychiatric evaluation. Although not promoted as a jail diversion program, this process has the potential to direct mentally ill citizens appropriately from the criminal justice system into the mental health system. Greater involvement of mental health professionals at all stages, including police training and participation in crisis response teams in the community, may improve this process.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The insanity defense is a legal construct that excuses certain mentally ill defendants from legal responsibility for criminal behavior. This practice guideline has delineated the forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendants raising the insanity defense. The document describes acceptable forensic psychiatric practices. Where possible, standards of practice and ethical guidelines have been specified. And where appropriate, the practice guideline has emphasized the importance of analyzing the individual case, the jurisdictional case law and the state (or federal) statute. This practice guideline is limited by the evolving case law, statutory language and legal literature. The authors have emphasized the statutory language of current legal standards, as well as the state or federal courts' interpretation of those standards because the same statutory language has been interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. Similarly, this practice guideline has reviewed the state and federal trends that determine which diagnoses meet the criteria for mental disease or defect. These trends yield to jurisdictional court interpretations. Finally, the authors hope this practice guideline has begun the dialogue about formulating a forensic psychiatric opinion by surveying the various approaches used to analyze case data. The forensic psychiatrist's opinion in each case requires an understanding of the current jurisdictional legal standard and its application, as well as a thorough analysis of the individual case. The psychiatrist's analysis and opinion should be clearly stated in the forensic psychiatric report. It should be noted that the role of a psychiatric expert witness in the criminal justice system is predicated on the law's interest in individualizing the criteria of mitigation and exculpation. Forensic psychiatric analyses and formulations of opinions are, therefore, subject to change as the legal guidance changes.

Asunto(s)