Social workers’ and physicians’ experiences with review panels in British Columbia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In British Columbia, individuals with a mental disorder can be hospitalised against their will under the Mental Health Act (1999), when a physician determines that "protection of the person or others" is an issue. Involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation involves a major infringement of an individual's civil liberty. When patients or their representatives disagree with the treatment teams about their involuntary hospitalisation, they can apply for an appeal hearing named the review panel under the Mental Health Act (1999). From a theoretical perspective, the traditional medical model and the social constructionist model, which offer different views concerning individuals with mental illness who are hospitalised against their will, are presented. This theoretical contrast underscores a major dilemma faced by mental health professionals in fostering client self-determination, while they are providing services on the principle of beneficent protection. An empowerment model of social work practice is then described to illustrate how services can be provided to help mental patients regain a sense of control over their lives. Concerns about the current legislation regarding involuntary hospitalisation are also discussed. To supplement the limited number of studies currently available on review panels, a quantitative descriptive study was conducted at Riverview Hospital, the only tertiary psychiatric hospital in British Columbia, surveying the experiences of 39 social workers and physicians with review panels. A questionnaire consisting of 22 Likerttype items was used. Four categories were identified: (a) patient-related issues, (b) effects of review panels on treatment teams, (c) role conflicts, and (d) operational issues. Despite the apparent lack of formal training, social workers and physicians generally reported having adequate knowledge of review panels. Social workers and physicians who were involved more frequently with review panels appeared to have more positive attitudes towards them. Their training pertaining to the Mental Health Act was also significantly related to their attitudes. Neither patients nor their families reportedly had adequate knowledge of the review panel process. Although some positive effects of review panels were acknowledged, staff generally had mixed attitudes about review panels. Guided by an empowerment model, these findings have important implications for social work practice. These include the need for further professional training, improved communication between health professionals and legal advocates, education for patients and families, and the support of patients' collective action, so that review panels can be a more empowering experience for mental patients.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,039 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,018 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».