Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 18;16(3):e0247268. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247268. eCollection 2021.
In British Columbia (BC), Canada, clinicians are responsible for giving involuntary psychiatric patients rights information upon admission. Yet an investigation by the BC Office of the Ombudsperson found that clinicians are not always fulfilling this responsibility. The Ombudsperson recommended that the provincial government fund an independent body to give rights advice to patients.
To understand how clinicians feel about this recommendation, focus groups of clinicians who may give psychiatric patients rights information (n = 81) were conducted in Vancouver, BC, to probe their attitudes toward independent rights advisors. The focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed.
Most clinicians believe that giving rights information is within their scope of practice, although some acknowledge that it poses a conflict of interest when the patient wishes to challenge the treatment team's decisions. Participants' chief concerns about an independent rights-advice service were that (a) patients may experience a delay in receiving their rights information, (b) integrating rights advisors into the workflow would complicate an already chaotic admission process, and (c) more patients would be counselled to challenge their hospitalization, leading to an increased administrative workload for clinical staff. However, many participants believed that independent rights advisors would be a positive addition to the admission process, both allowing clinicians to focus on treatment and serving as a source of rights-related information.
Participants were generally amenable to an independent rights-advice service, suggesting that the introduction of rights advisors need not result in an adversarial relationship between treatment team and patient, as opponents of the proposal fear. Clearly distinguishing between basic rights information and in-depth rights advice could address several of the clinicians' concerns about the role that independent rights advisors would play in the involuntary admission process. Clinicians' and other stakeholders' concerns should be considered as the province develops its rights-advice service.
在加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省(BC),临床医生负责在患者入院时为非自愿接受精神科治疗的患者提供权利信息。然而,BC 巡视员办公室的一项调查发现,临床医生并非总是履行这一责任。巡视员建议省政府为一个独立机构提供资金,以便为患者提供权利建议。
为了了解临床医生对这一建议的看法,在不列颠哥伦比亚省温哥华市对可能为精神科患者提供权利信息的临床医生进行了焦点小组讨论(n = 81),以探究他们对独立权利顾问的态度。对焦点小组的转录内容进行了主题分析。
大多数临床医生认为提供权利信息属于他们的执业范围,尽管一些人承认,当患者希望对治疗团队的决策提出质疑时,这会造成利益冲突。参与者对独立权利顾问服务的主要担忧是:(a)患者可能会延迟收到他们的权利信息;(b)将权利顾问纳入工作流程会使已经混乱的入院过程更加复杂;(c)更多的患者会被建议对住院提出质疑,从而增加临床工作人员的行政工作量。然而,许多参与者认为独立权利顾问将是入院过程的一个积极补充,既可以让临床医生专注于治疗,又可以为他们提供与权利相关的信息。
参与者普遍赞成独立的权利咨询服务,这表明,正如该提议的反对者所担心的那样,引入权利顾问不一定会导致治疗团队与患者之间的对抗关系。明确区分基本权利信息和深入的权利建议,可以解决临床医生对独立权利顾问在非自愿入院过程中所扮演角色的一些担忧。在该省开发其权利咨询服务时,应考虑临床医生和其他利益相关者的关切。