Algorithm for the use of the Guardianship Act, the Mental Health Act and the Public Health Act in emergency departments in New South Wales

Bloom's taxonomy-Can evidence-based teaching improve junior medical officers' knowledge of the mental health and guardianship acts?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a brief educational intervention for Junior Medical Officers (JMOs), using teaching methods aimed at achieving higher outcomes on Bloom's Taxonomy, significantly improved participant confidence and knowledge in decision making about restrictive care.

METHOD

JMOs received a teaching session on restrictive medical and mental health care. Groups were randomly assigned to either sessions including a component of modern pedagogical interventions (Think-Pair-Share and SNAPPS), or sessions including a control period focusing on reviewing a condensed summary of relevant information. Pre- and post-intervention measures were recorded for subjective self-ratings of confidence and scores on standardized clinically relevant extended matching questions (EMQs).

RESULTS

There was no difference in subjective confidence improvement between groups; however, the group receiving the modern pedagogical intervention demonstrated significantly greater objective performance on knowledge-based EMQs.

CONCLUSIONS

A brief modern pedagogical intervention using interactive teaching methods shows promise for improving knowledge of restrictive care and the Mental Health and Guardianship Acts. In the control group, similarly increased confidence in knowledge did not equate to increased competence on a knowledge assessment. Refurbishing educational interventions presents opportunities for improving clinical outcomes and engaging junior doctors in psychiatry.

Involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation - differences and similarities between patients detained under the mental health act and according to the legal guardianship legislation

BACKGROUND

Involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation occurs under different legal premises. According to German law, detention under the Mental Health Act (MHA) is possible in cases of imminent danger of self-harm or harm to others, while detention according to the legal guardianship legislation (LGL) serves to prevent self-harm if there is considerable but not necessarily imminent danger. This study aims to compare clinical, sociodemographic and environmental socioeconomic differences and similarities between patients hospitalised under either the MHA or LGL.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective health records analysis of all involuntarily hospitalised cases in the four psychiatric hospitals of the city of Cologne, Germany, in 2011. Of the 1,773 cases, 87.3% were detained under the MHA of the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia and 6.4% were hospitalised according to the federal LGL. Another 6.3% of the cases were originally admitted under the MHA, but the legal basis of detention was converted to LGL during the inpatient psychiatric stay (MHA→LGL cases). We compared sociodemographic, clinical, systemic and environmental socioeconomic (ESED) variables of the three groups by means of descriptive statistics. We also trained and tested a machine learning-based algorithm to predict class membership of the involuntary modes of psychiatric inpatient care.

RESULTS

Cases with an admission under the premises of LGL lived less often on their own, and they were more often retired compared to MHA cases. They more often had received previous outpatient or inpatient treatment than MHA cases, they were more often diagnosed with a psychotic disorder and they lived in neighbourhoods that were on average more socially advantaged. MHA→LGL cases were on average older and more often retired than MHA cases. More often, they had a main diagnosis of an organic mental disorder compared to both MHA and LGL cases. Also, they less often received previous psychiatric inpatient treatment compared to LGL cases. The reason for detention (self-harm or harm to others) did not differ between the three groups. The proportion of LGL and MHA cases differed between the four hospitals. Effect sizes were mostly small and the balanced accuracy of the Random Forest was low.

CONCLUSION

We found some plausible differences in patient characteristics depending on the legal foundation of the involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation. The differences relate to clinical, sociodemographic and socioeconomical issues. However, the low effect sizes and the limited accuracy of the machine learning models indicate that the investigated variables do not sufficiently explain the respective choice of the legal framework. In addition, we found some indication for possibly different interpretation and handling of the premises of the law in practice. Our findings pose the need for further research in this field.

The Right to Refuse: Understanding Healthcare Providers' Perspectives on Patient Autonomy in Emergency Care

Healthcare providers in prehospital care and emergency departments are often at the frontline of medical crises, facing a range of ethical dilemmas, particularly when it comes to patients refusing treatment. This study aimed to delve into the attitudes of these providers toward treatment refusal, unearthing the strategies they employ in navigating such challenging situations while actively working in prehospital emergency health services. Our findings showed that, as the participants' age and experience increased, so did their inclination to respect patient autonomy and avoid persuading them to change their decision about treatment. It was noted that doctors, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians demonstrated a deeper understanding of patients' rights than other medical specialists. However, even with this understanding, the prioritization of patients' rights tended to diminish in life-threatening situations, giving rise to ethical dilemmas. This underlines the complexity of balancing the healthcare professionals' responsibilities and the patients' autonomy, which can generate ethically challenging scenarios for those working in emergency healthcare. By investigating these attitudes and experiences, this study seeks to foster a more profound understanding of the ethical quandaries faced by emergency healthcare providers. Our ultimate aim is to contribute to the development of effective strategies that support both patients and professionals in managing these tough circumstances.