Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to measure the level of experience and knowledge of novel psychoactive substances (NPS) amongst psychiatrists, asking them to rank NPS against other psychoactive substances in terms of concern and the role they believe NPS play in the diagnosis and management of psychiatric disorders.
Design/methodology/approach
An online survey was created and emailed to all 217 psychiatrists working for a large city Mental Health Trust.
Findings
In total, 108 of 217 psychiatrists responded to the survey. A majority of the respondents believed that their level of knowledge of NPS was inadequate and stated that they would like to receive more training. Half of them either named only one or no NPS that they had encountered within the last five years. There was a correlation between the experience of the respondent and the number of NPS that they could name.
Practical implications
Most of the respondents assessed their own knowledge of NPS as either poor or basic. Psychiatrists’ knowledge of NPS could be improved by having regular NPS-related training, by being sent regular updates on NPS and by including lectures in the Membership of the Royal College of Psychiatrists courses. Psychiatrists should also be encouraged to access online resources such as NEPTUNE and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
Originality/value
This is the first survey of the UK psychiatrists of their knowledge and experience of NPS.
SummaryMany psychiatrists in the UK may be surprised to find that the Government ratified a convention ten years ago that suggests compulsory mental health treatment be prohibited. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is arguably the most important legal instrument that no one in psychiatry ever discusses, but if moved from ratification to enforcement it would have enormous effect on day-to-day practice. Here, Dr Paul Gosney argues that the convention if enforced would be damaging for the people it aims to protect, whereas Professor Peter Bartlett defends it as a necessary challenge to the inequalities in our current system.
The approach to managing the involuntary detention of people suffering from psychiatric conditions can be divided into those with clinicians at the forefront of decision-making and those who rely heavily on the judiciary. The system in England and Wales takes a clinical approach where doctors have widespread powers to detain and treat patients involuntarily. A protection in this system is the right of the individual to challenge a decision to deprive them of their liberty or treat them against their will. This protection is provided by the First-tier Tribunal; however, the number of successful appeals is low. In this paper, the system of appeal in England and Wales is outlined. This is followed by a discussion of why so few patients successfully appeal their detention with the conclusion that the current system is flawed. A number of recommendations about how the system might be reformed are offered.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.