549 Mental health care for patients with potential decision-making capacity compromise: Challenging Ontario’s mental healthcare legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives/Goals: How do we care for a patient whose mental health is deteriorated such that their decision-making capacity may be compromised? The high-potency opioid crisis in Ontario demands that we provide effective care for the affected population. We must also avoid patients having a subjective experience of coercion and must protect their human rights and dignity. Methods/Study Population: Ontario’s legislation governing mental health care will be explored: the Ontario Mental Health, Healthcare Consent, and Substitute Decisions Acts. We will identify best practices/learning across locales. Patients who have been involuntarily treated/confined will be welcomed to voice what the law should contain. International strategies for: coercion reduction practices, advanced care directives, less prohibitionist care culture, and supports for social determinants of health (SDH) may also help Ontarians. Patients, family members, law enforcement, judiciary, community agencies, and healthcare professionals will be invited to contribute via focus groups to drafted mental health care legislative improvements. Thus, we ensure law enforces patient-defined quality care and practical workflows. Results/Anticipated Results: We hope to emerge from our focus group consultation with draft legislative and procedural edits for Ontario’s mental healthcare laws to ensure that the laws protect human rights and that the laws reflect patient-defined needs. We must ensure controls are in place to de-risk power imbalances and limit the incidence of potential procedural misuse. We intend to design legislated procedures to ensure that people don’t get inappropriately involuntarily confined/treated. We will incorporate the perspectives and lived experiences of patients who have experienced involuntary treatment and/or involuntary medical confinement (locally in a focus group(s)) and internationally (in literature) to inform this legislative development. Discussion/Significance of Impact: We will learn from engaged stakeholders about how to shape Ontario’s legislation to support quality mental health care. We hope to identify and draft legislation improvements that voice what patients and their families’ value, drafts informed by evidence-based best practices and informed innovation. Via inclusion, we create a policy that serves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".