Social workers’ and physicians’ experiences with review panels in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".