RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Behaviour support plan (BSP) quality auditing tools like the Behaviour Intervention Plan Quality Evaluation, Version 2 (BIPQEII), assess the quality of a BSP from the perspective of technical compliance with behavioural principles. However, these principles may be inaccessible to interested stakeholders with limited experience and knowledge of positive behaviour support (PBS). The aim of this study was to test if a simplified version of the BIPQEII [the Behaviour Support Plan Audit Tool (BSPA-tool)] offers a reliable and valid assessment of a BSP's technical compliance with behavioural principles when used by professional stakeholders with varying levels of PBS experience and knowledge. METHODS: Four scorers rated 50 de-identified BSPs using the BSPA-tool, with one scorer also rating the BSPs using the BIPQEII. Four weeks later, each scorer rated 25 of the 50 BSPs again using the BSPA-tool. Prior to BSP scoring, a group of PBS practitioners provided feedback on the BSPA-tool's content validity. RESULTS: The BSPA-tool was found to have acceptable content and parallel-form validity; however, acceptable internal consistency and inter-rater and intra-rater reliability were dependent on PBS experience/knowledge, that is, scorers with more experience/knowledge achieved more acceptable levels of reliability. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that even with simplification, BSP quality auditing tools based on technical compliance with behavioural principles are still only accessible to stakeholders with extensive experience/knowledge of PBS. To engage less-experienced stakeholders in BSP quality auditing processes, new audit tools need to be developed that focus on other aspects of BSP quality (e.g. readability and consultation).
Asunto(s)
Derivación y Consulta , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the socio-demographic, clinical and legal determinants of mental health court decisions of unsoundness of mind and unfitness to stand trial for people with cognitive disability. We aimed to estimate the association between severity of cognitive disability and mental health court determinations of unsoundness or unfitness and describe the socio-demographic, clinical and legal factors that predict these determinations. METHODS: Case file data were extracted on 92 individuals who had a criminal case referred to the Queensland Mental Health Court between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014 due to cognitive disability. We fit a modified multivariable Poisson regression model to estimate the association between severity of cognitive impairment and mental health court determination, controlling for socio-demographic, clinical and legal factors. RESULTS: Adjusting for covariate effects, severity of cognitive impairment was positively associated with being found unfit to stand trial (adjusted prevalence risk ratio = 1.57; 95% confidence interval: 1.07, 2.33; P = 0.023), and comorbid psychotic disorder predicted an increased risk of being found unsound of mind at the time of offence (adjusted prevalence risk ratio = 3.63; 95% confidence interval: 1.38, 9.54; P = 0.009) by the Queensland Mental Health Court. CONCLUSIONS: Severity of cognitive disability is associated with determinations of unfitness but does not predict determinations of unsoundness in the Queensland Mental Health Court. Psychiatric assessments of cognitive impairment play a pivotal role in mental health court determinations for people with cognitive disability.