Cargando…

A qualitative study of clinicians’ perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND: In British Columbia (BC), Canada, clinicians are responsible for giving involuntary psychiatric patients rights information upon admission. Yet an investigation by the BC Office of the Ombudsperson found that clinicians are not always fulfilling this responsibility. The Ombudsperson reco...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheung, Iva W., Silva, Diego S., Miller, Kimberly J., Michalak, Erin E., Goldsmith, Charles H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7971454/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33735273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247268
_version_ 1783666615140745216
author Cheung, Iva W.
Silva, Diego S.
Miller, Kimberly J.
Michalak, Erin E.
Goldsmith, Charles H.
author_facet Cheung, Iva W.
Silva, Diego S.
Miller, Kimberly J.
Michalak, Erin E.
Goldsmith, Charles H.
author_sort Cheung, Iva W.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In British Columbia (BC), Canada, clinicians are responsible for giving involuntary psychiatric patients rights information upon admission. Yet an investigation by the BC Office of the Ombudsperson found that clinicians are not always fulfilling this responsibility. The Ombudsperson recommended that the provincial government fund an independent body to give rights advice to patients. METHODS: To understand how clinicians feel about this recommendation, focus groups of clinicians who may give psychiatric patients rights information (n = 81) were conducted in Vancouver, BC, to probe their attitudes toward independent rights advisors. The focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Most clinicians believe that giving rights information is within their scope of practice, although some acknowledge that it poses a conflict of interest when the patient wishes to challenge the treatment team’s decisions. Participants’ chief concerns about an independent rights-advice service were that (a) patients may experience a delay in receiving their rights information, (b) integrating rights advisors into the workflow would complicate an already chaotic admission process, and (c) more patients would be counselled to challenge their hospitalization, leading to an increased administrative workload for clinical staff. However, many participants believed that independent rights advisors would be a positive addition to the admission process, both allowing clinicians to focus on treatment and serving as a source of rights-related information. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were generally amenable to an independent rights-advice service, suggesting that the introduction of rights advisors need not result in an adversarial relationship between treatment team and patient, as opponents of the proposal fear. Clearly distinguishing between basic rights information and in-depth rights advice could address several of the clinicians’ concerns about the role that independent rights advisors would play in the involuntary admission process. Clinicians’ and other stakeholders’ concerns should be considered as the province develops its rights-advice service.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7971454
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79714542021-03-31 A qualitative study of clinicians’ perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in British Columbia, Canada Cheung, Iva W. Silva, Diego S. Miller, Kimberly J. Michalak, Erin E. Goldsmith, Charles H. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: In British Columbia (BC), Canada, clinicians are responsible for giving involuntary psychiatric patients rights information upon admission. Yet an investigation by the BC Office of the Ombudsperson found that clinicians are not always fulfilling this responsibility. The Ombudsperson recommended that the provincial government fund an independent body to give rights advice to patients. METHODS: To understand how clinicians feel about this recommendation, focus groups of clinicians who may give psychiatric patients rights information (n = 81) were conducted in Vancouver, BC, to probe their attitudes toward independent rights advisors. The focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Most clinicians believe that giving rights information is within their scope of practice, although some acknowledge that it poses a conflict of interest when the patient wishes to challenge the treatment team’s decisions. Participants’ chief concerns about an independent rights-advice service were that (a) patients may experience a delay in receiving their rights information, (b) integrating rights advisors into the workflow would complicate an already chaotic admission process, and (c) more patients would be counselled to challenge their hospitalization, leading to an increased administrative workload for clinical staff. However, many participants believed that independent rights advisors would be a positive addition to the admission process, both allowing clinicians to focus on treatment and serving as a source of rights-related information. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were generally amenable to an independent rights-advice service, suggesting that the introduction of rights advisors need not result in an adversarial relationship between treatment team and patient, as opponents of the proposal fear. Clearly distinguishing between basic rights information and in-depth rights advice could address several of the clinicians’ concerns about the role that independent rights advisors would play in the involuntary admission process. Clinicians’ and other stakeholders’ concerns should be considered as the province develops its rights-advice service. Public Library of Science 2021-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7971454/ /pubmed/33735273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247268 Text en © 2021 Cheung et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cheung, Iva W.
Silva, Diego S.
Miller, Kimberly J.
Michalak, Erin E.
Goldsmith, Charles H.
A qualitative study of clinicians’ perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in British Columbia, Canada
title A qualitative study of clinicians’ perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in British Columbia, Canada
title_full A qualitative study of clinicians’ perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in British Columbia, Canada
title_fullStr A qualitative study of clinicians’ perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in British Columbia, Canada
title_full_unstemmed A qualitative study of clinicians’ perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in British Columbia, Canada
title_short A qualitative study of clinicians’ perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in British Columbia, Canada
title_sort qualitative study of clinicians’ perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in british columbia, canada
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7971454/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33735273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247268
work_keys_str_mv AT cheungivaw aqualitativestudyofcliniciansperspectivesonindependentrightsadviceforinvoluntarypsychiatricpatientsinbritishcolumbiacanada
AT silvadiegos aqualitativestudyofcliniciansperspectivesonindependentrightsadviceforinvoluntarypsychiatricpatientsinbritishcolumbiacanada
AT millerkimberlyj aqualitativestudyofcliniciansperspectivesonindependentrightsadviceforinvoluntarypsychiatricpatientsinbritishcolumbiacanada
AT michalakerine aqualitativestudyofcliniciansperspectivesonindependentrightsadviceforinvoluntarypsychiatricpatientsinbritishcolumbiacanada
AT goldsmithcharlesh aqualitativestudyofcliniciansperspectivesonindependentrightsadviceforinvoluntarypsychiatricpatientsinbritishcolumbiacanada
AT cheungivaw qualitativestudyofcliniciansperspectivesonindependentrightsadviceforinvoluntarypsychiatricpatientsinbritishcolumbiacanada
AT silvadiegos qualitativestudyofcliniciansperspectivesonindependentrightsadviceforinvoluntarypsychiatricpatientsinbritishcolumbiacanada
AT millerkimberlyj qualitativestudyofcliniciansperspectivesonindependentrightsadviceforinvoluntarypsychiatricpatientsinbritishcolumbiacanada
AT michalakerine qualitativestudyofcliniciansperspectivesonindependentrightsadviceforinvoluntarypsychiatricpatientsinbritishcolumbiacanada
AT goldsmithcharlesh qualitativestudyofcliniciansperspectivesonindependentrightsadviceforinvoluntarypsychiatricpatientsinbritishcolumbiacanada