Stakeholders' views of legal and advice services for people admitted to psychiatric hospital
Stakeholders' views of legal and advice services for people admitted to psychiatric hospital
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/09649060802550659
复制
发表时间：
2008-01-01
影响因子：
1.5
通讯作者：
Campbell, James
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Campbell, James
本文描述了一项研究，该研究使用混合方法方法来引出一系列利益相关者对精神病院强制入院经验的看法，并使用精神健康审查法庭（MHRT）。论文首先介绍了这项研究的背景，这项研究发生在北爱尔兰，这是英国一个有自己的心理健康立法和政策的地区。然后介绍文献综述。这突出了服务使用者和护理人员在强制住院期间和之后与专业人员打交道时面临的一些不利条件。本节总结了英国MHRT的文献综述。使用了一系列方法从以下利益相关者那里收集数据：五个服务使用者和护理者焦点小组访谈（n = 44）；与四名有审裁处工作经验的律师面谈；与法庭一名法律成员的面谈；对认为自己具备执行审裁处工作能力的律师进行调查；与三位提供患者倡导服务的机构经理进行访谈；致函医院管理人员，要求向患者和护理人员提供信息。调查结果揭示了与这些被迫住院和随后使用法庭的经历有关的若干主题。服务使用者和护理人员普遍认为很难获得有关权利的相关信息，医院管理人员提供的信息参差不齐，律师往往不熟悉与强制住院有关的程序。人们对法庭有各种各样的看法。大多数答复者认为，法庭是必要的，而且在履行职能方面基本上令人满意，但利益攸关方提出了一些问题。护理人员尤其觉得他们应该更多地参与决策过程，而律师往往更关注技术性和法律问题。律师们强调了在法庭面前调换职位和审查医疗证据的问题。有人呼吁服务使用者和照顾者提供更好的信息和咨询意见，并认识到有必要对律师进行更好的培训和教育。论文最后简要讨论了英国目前的精神卫生法，认为在这种情况下，专业人员应该更积极地利用信息和建议，使服务使用者和护理人员能够捍卫自己的权利。
This paper describes a study that used a mixed method approach to elicit the views of a range of stakeholders about experiences of compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital, and the use of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). The paper begins with an introduction to the background of the study, one that took place in Northern Ireland, a region in the UK with its own mental health legislation and policy. A review of literature is then presented. This highlights some of the disadvantages that service users and carers face when dealing with professionals during and following compulsory admission to hospital. This section concludes with an overview of literature on the MHRT in the UK.A range of methods was used to gather data from the following stakeholders: five service user and carer focus group interviews (n = 44); interviews with four lawyers experienced in Tribunal work; an interview with a legal member of the Tribunal; a survey of solicitors who identified themselves as equipped to carry out Tribunal work; interviews with three managers of organisations that provided patient advocacy services; letters to hospital managers requesting information provided to patients and carers.The findings reveal a number of themes associated with these experiences of compulsory admission to hospital and subsequent use of the Tribunal. Service users and carers generally found it difficult to access relevant information about rights, information provided by hospital managers was uneven and lawyers were often not familiar with processes associated with compulsory admission. There was a range of views about the Tribunal. Most respondents felt that the Tribunal was necessary and mostly satisfactory in the way it carried out its functions, but stakeholders raised a number of issues. Carers in particular felt that they should be more involved in decision-making processes, whereas lawyers tended to be focused on more technical, legal issues. Problems of regrading prior to the Tribunal and in examining medical evidence were highlighted by lawyers. There was an appeal for better information and advice by service users and carers, and recognition of the need for better training and education for lawyers.The paper concludes with a brief discussion about current mental health law in the UK, arguing that, in this context, professionals should more proactively use information and advice that can enable service users and carers to defend their rights.