Manguno-Mire Gina M, Thompson John W, Shore Jay H, Croy Calvin D, Artecona Jose F, Pickering John W
Department of Psychiatry and Neurology, Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007;35(4):481-9.
To investigate whether forensic evaluations can be performed reliably using telemedicine, we compared the results on a standard competency assessment instrument using telemedicine (TM) and live interviews (LI). Two board-certified forensic psychiatrists used the Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT) to evaluate 21 forensic psychiatric inpatients. Half of the patients were randomly assigned to a telemedicine interview and half were assigned to a live interview. Total scores on the GCCT were similar for both raters, indicating high levels of agreement between telemedicine and live interviews. Patient and provider satisfaction were measured and indicated that, although patients did not express a preference for a particular interview modality, providers reported greater satisfaction with live interviews. Findings suggest that one aspect of competency to stand trial can be reliably evaluated using telemedicine and that patients perceive telemedicine as an acceptable alternative to a standard live interview. The limited sample size precludes definite conclusions and further studies involving a larger forensic study population are warranted.
为了研究是否可以使用远程医疗可靠地进行法医评估,我们比较了使用远程医疗(TM)和现场访谈(LI)在标准能力评估工具上的结果。两位获得董事会认证的法医精神病学家使用佐治亚州法院能力测试(GCCT)对21名法医精神病住院患者进行评估。一半患者被随机分配到远程医疗访谈组,另一半被分配到现场访谈组。两位评估者在GCCT上的总分相似,表明远程医疗和现场访谈之间具有高度一致性。测量了患者和提供者的满意度,结果表明,虽然患者没有表达对特定访谈方式的偏好,但提供者对现场访谈的满意度更高。研究结果表明,使用远程医疗可以可靠地评估受审能力的一个方面,并且患者认为远程医疗是标准现场访谈的可接受替代方式。样本量有限,无法得出明确结论,因此有必要开展涉及更大法医研究人群的进一步研究。