极端风险保护令:立法意图和临床医生指导。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Hal S Wortzel, Joseph A Simonetti, Christopher E Knoepke, Joseph R Simpson, Leah Brar, Patricia Westmoreland, Bridget B Matarazzo
{"title":"极端风险保护令:立法意图和临床医生指导。","authors":"Hal S Wortzel, Joseph A Simonetti, Christopher E Knoepke, Joseph R Simpson, Leah Brar, Patricia Westmoreland, Bridget B Matarazzo","doi":"10.1097/PRA.0000000000000749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this second column of a 2-part series exploring extreme risk protections orders, we utilize recent events in Colorado, including legislative efforts to expand the list of eligible petitioners to include clinicians, as an opportunity to explore questions and challenges faced by mental health and medical professionals serving in this capacity. Clinicians are in need of more clear guidance, given an emerging role that comes without clear evidence or practice standards to inform individualized clinical decision-making, and which potentially pits public safety interests against patient care needs, especially those pertaining to therapeutic relationships. In the interim, clinicians will best serve their patients by continuing to practice in a fashion that is analogous to decision-making around other interventions with serious implications for patient autonomy such as involuntary hospitalization. Ongoing collaboration with legislators is needed to arrive at laws that are informed by the limitations inherent in clinical risk assessment and that can be translated into clinical practices that simultaneously support patient needs and community safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":16909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychiatric Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extreme Risk Protection Orders: Legislative Intent and Clinician Guidance.\",\"authors\":\"Hal S Wortzel, Joseph A Simonetti, Christopher E Knoepke, Joseph R Simpson, Leah Brar, Patricia Westmoreland, Bridget B Matarazzo\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PRA.0000000000000749\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this second column of a 2-part series exploring extreme risk protections orders, we utilize recent events in Colorado, including legislative efforts to expand the list of eligible petitioners to include clinicians, as an opportunity to explore questions and challenges faced by mental health and medical professionals serving in this capacity. Clinicians are in need of more clear guidance, given an emerging role that comes without clear evidence or practice standards to inform individualized clinical decision-making, and which potentially pits public safety interests against patient care needs, especially those pertaining to therapeutic relationships. In the interim, clinicians will best serve their patients by continuing to practice in a fashion that is analogous to decision-making around other interventions with serious implications for patient autonomy such as involuntary hospitalization. Ongoing collaboration with legislators is needed to arrive at laws that are informed by the limitations inherent in clinical risk assessment and that can be translated into clinical practices that simultaneously support patient needs and community safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Psychiatric Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Psychiatric Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRA.0000000000000749\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychiatric Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRA.0000000000000749","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在探索极端风险保护令的两部分系列文章的第二栏中,我们利用科罗拉多州最近发生的事件,包括立法努力将符合条件的请愿者名单扩大到临床医生,作为探索以这种身份服务的心理健康和医疗专业人员面临的问题和挑战的机会。临床医生需要更明确的指导,因为这是一个新兴的角色,没有明确的证据或实践标准来为个性化的临床决策提供信息,而且可能会使公共安全利益与患者护理需求相冲突,尤其是与治疗关系有关的需求。在此期间,临床医生将通过继续以类似于其他干预措施的决策方式为患者服务,这些干预措施对患者自主性有严重影响,如非自愿住院。需要与立法者持续合作,以制定符合临床风险评估固有局限性的法律,并将其转化为同时支持患者需求和社区安全的临床实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Extreme Risk Protection Orders: Legislative Intent and Clinician Guidance.

In this second column of a 2-part series exploring extreme risk protections orders, we utilize recent events in Colorado, including legislative efforts to expand the list of eligible petitioners to include clinicians, as an opportunity to explore questions and challenges faced by mental health and medical professionals serving in this capacity. Clinicians are in need of more clear guidance, given an emerging role that comes without clear evidence or practice standards to inform individualized clinical decision-making, and which potentially pits public safety interests against patient care needs, especially those pertaining to therapeutic relationships. In the interim, clinicians will best serve their patients by continuing to practice in a fashion that is analogous to decision-making around other interventions with serious implications for patient autonomy such as involuntary hospitalization. Ongoing collaboration with legislators is needed to arrive at laws that are informed by the limitations inherent in clinical risk assessment and that can be translated into clinical practices that simultaneously support patient needs and community safety.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
159
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Psychiatric Practice® seizes the day with its emphasis on the three Rs — readability, reliability, and relevance. Featuring an eye-catching style, the journal combines clinically applicable reviews, case studies, and articles on treatment advances with practical and informative tips for treating patients. Mental health professionals will want access to this review journal — for sharpening their clinical skills, discovering the best in treatment, and navigating this rapidly changing field. Journal of Psychiatric Practice combines clinically applicable reviews, case studies, and articles on treatment advances with informative "how to" tips for surviving in a managed care environment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信