|
|
McKenna, B. (1999). Patient perception of coercion on admission to acute psychiatric services: the New Zealand experience. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(2), 143–153.
Abstract: This study considers the influence of legal status, interactive processes, and mediating factors upon patient perception of coercion, within the context of admission to mental health services in New Zealand. The admission experiences of 69 involuntary inpatient psychiatric admissions and 69 informal admissions are compared using the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. The influence of demographic, clinical and situational variables on the experience are considered. The results indicate there is a strong significant difference in the perception of coercion between involuntary and informal patients, with legal status having predictive value in relation to patient perception of coercion. Patient perception of procedural justice is strongly negatively correlated with perception of coercion. Perception of negative interactive processes is strongly felt by involuntary patients. This experience is not fully explained by identifiable incidents throughout the admission process. In the New Zealand context, there remains a need to highlight the aspects of procedural justice which could be improved in order to reduce patient perception of coercion. Current methodology focuses on the experience of admission rather than the expectation of that experience. This point needs to be considered in relation to the experience of Maori (the indigenous people of New Zealand)
|
|
|
|
Walsh, K., Moss, C., Lawless, J., McKelvie, R., & Duncan, L. (2008). Puzzling practice: A strategy for working with clinical practice issues. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 14(2), 94–100.
Abstract: The authors share the evolution of innovative ways to explore, 'unpack' and re-frame clinical issues that exist in everyday practice. The elements of these processes, which they call 'puzzling practice', and the techniques associated with them, were delineated over a two year period by the authors using action theory based processes. The authors have evolved several different frameworks for 'puzzling practice' which they draw on and use in their practice development work and in research practice. This paper pays attention to a particular form of puzzling practice that they found to be useful in assisting individual clinicians and teams to explore and find workable solutions to practice issues. In this example 'puzzling practice' uses seven different elements; naming the issue; puzzling the issue; testing the puzzle; exploring the heart of out practice; formulating the puzzle question; visualising the future; and generating new strategies for action. Each of the elements is illustrated by the story and the key foundations and ideas behind each element is explored.
|
|
