MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W211973517

Alberta's Community Treatment Orders: Canadian and International Comparisons

2012· article· en· W211973517 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
John E. Gray, Margaret A. Shone, Richard O’Reilly

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLegislationMental illnessMental Health ActLegislatureAutonomyMental healthNova scotiaMedicinePolitical sciencePsychiatryLawGeography
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) are designed to assist people who, because of serious mental illness, do not avail themselves voluntarily of medication, follow-up opportunities and other services for their care and treatment while living in the community and who, without treatment, become psychotic and require repeated hospitalization. CTOs are generally viewed as less restrictive of liberty and individual autonomy than the alternative of involuntary inpatient hospitalization. CTOs have been developed relatively recently in response to the shift from hospital-based to community-based mental health service delivery (e.g. New Zealand) (1) although in some jurisdictions the tipping point for the legislative motivation to enact CTO legislation has been violent incidents involving people with untreated mental illness. Alberta, (2) Ontario (3) and New York (4) are examples. We discuss the Alberta incident and the relationship between mental illness and violent incidents in the last section of this article where we respond to criticisms of CTOs. Alberta is the fifth and most recent province in Canada to enact CTO legislation. In formulating its provisions, Alberta (5) had the benefit of experience in Saskatchewan, (6) Ontario, (7) Nova Scotia (8) and Newfoundland and Labrador (9) as well as in a large number of international jurisdictions. (10) It also had the benefit of extensive information gained from recent scientific studies. (11) In the next section of this article, we compare significant elements of CTOs in Alberta with those in the four other Canadian provinces that have CTOs and, internationally, in New Zealand, and some Australian, United Kingdom and United States jurisdictions. (12) We then address criticisms that have been levelled at CTOs in Alberta and give our conclusion. Significant Elements of CTOs This article focuses on the major substantive and procedural elements in Alberta's CTO scheme including the authority to issue a CTO, the criteria, pre-conditions, consent, treatment planning, duration, compliance, and rights and protections. Authority to issue a CTO CTOs are issued by physicians after examination of the person being assessed for a CTO. Alberta requires separate examination and signature by two physicians, one of whom must be a psychiatrist, within the 72 hours immediately preceding issue of the CTO. (13) In contrast Ontario requires only one physician who does not have to be a psychiatrist. (14) CTO criteria (harm and deterioration) In Alberta, as in other Canadian provinces and most foreign jurisdictions, the criteria for issuing a CTO builds on the criteria for involuntary inpatient hospitalization. In Alberta, in addition to suffering from mental disorder, the individual must be to cause to the person or others or to suffer substantial mental or physical or serious physical impairment (the harm or deterioration criterion) in the absence of intervention. The Alberta wording (which applies to both involuntary inpatient hospitalization and CTOs was previously to present a to himself of others. (15) The new language parallels the wording in the Saskatchewan legislation (16) and is similar to changes in wording that have been made in other provinces. (17) The rewording broadens the basis for intervention with the result that more people are now likely to qualify for a CTO than would have qualified under Alberta's previous danger criterion. Pre-conditions (previous psychiatric history) Even where a person meets the committal criteria for involuntary intervention, all jurisdictions in Canada and some jurisdictions elsewhere impose a pre-condition on CTOs. That is to say, a physician can only issue a CTO where the person has a previous psychiatric history. In contrast, most jurisdictions outside Canada impose no pre-conditions and do not require an inpatient history. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,084
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,609

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0120,030
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,003
Communication savante0,0060,001
Science ouverte0,0030,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,208
Tête enseignante GPT0,488
Écart entre enseignants0,280 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2012
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth law reviewMême sujetHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsTravaux en français237 207