Social Workers' and Physicians' Experiences with Review Panels in British Columbia

Abstract

Involuntary psychiatric commitment involves a major infringement of a person's civil liberty. In British Columbia, the Mental Health Act (1999) provides a statutory basis for a review of a patient's involuntary status via the review panel. The inherently adversarial nature of review panels may lead to mixed feelings among mental health professionals who are in a dilemma of fostering client self-determination while providing services on the principle of beneficent protection. A quantitative descriptive study was conducted at the provincial psychiatric hospital in British Columbia, surveying the experiences of 39 social workers and physicians with review panels. A questionnaire consisting of 22 Likert-type statements was used. Four categories were identified, namely, (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 reported having adequate knowledge of review panels. Although some positive effects of review panels were acknowledged, staff had mixed attitudes towards review panels. Guided by an empowerment model of social work practice, these findings have important implications for social work practice. These include the need for further professional training, So-han Yip is a psychiatric social worker at Riverview Hospital, North Lawn, 500 Lougheed Highway,

Service users’ experiences of mental health tribunals in Ireland: a qualitative analysis

“…Participants who appraised their MHT as positive noted that they were spoken to with respect, were afforded many opportunities to verbally convey their perspective and received clear explanations about the MHTs decision. Such narratives support evidence from studies of MHTs in Canada and New Zealand which suggest that inclusive and therapeutic practices can be achieved if MHT members pay attention to the way they address service users, ask questions and discuss the person's mental distress (Yip, 2004;Diesfeld & McKenna, 2006, 2007Carney, 2010). The adversarial nature may also be alleviated by rectifying the 'mini court case' feel of many MHTs.…”

Are mental health tribunals operating in accordance with international human rights standards? A systematic review of the international literature

“…Impairment arising from mental distress can also act as a barrier to processing and retaining information and the withholding of information or providing inaccessible information, can foster misunderstanding and prevent people from exercising their right to a fair hearing. A study conducted with social workers and physicians in British Columbia reported that only 39.5% had informed patients of their right to a review panel (Yip, ). In addition, Georgieva et al () observed that only 34% of informants in Ireland were actually satisfied with the level of information they received.…”

“…Person‐centred practice is also dependent upon the development of good quality relationships. Giving evidence in support of compulsory treatment, however, can cause tensions in inter‐personal relationships and relations with mental health professionals (Donnelly, Lynch, Mohan, & Kennedy, ; Jabbar, Kelly, & Casey, ; Ng et al, ; Ridley & Hunter, ; Yip, ). In a Canadian study, around one‐third of social workers and physicians felt that their relationships with patients were negatively impacted by discussions about the review panel (Yip, ).…”

“…Giving evidence in support of compulsory treatment, however, can cause tensions in inter‐personal relationships and relations with mental health professionals (Donnelly, Lynch, Mohan, & Kennedy, ; Jabbar, Kelly, & Casey, ; Ng et al, ; Ridley & Hunter, ; Yip, ). In a Canadian study, around one‐third of social workers and physicians felt that their relationships with patients were negatively impacted by discussions about the review panel (Yip, ). This was higher in a survey sent to all members of the Royal College of Physiatrists in Ireland, with 41% saying that their relationship had changed as a result of the Mental Health Act 2001, which had become more legalistic, more conflicted, less collaborative and less trusting (Jabbar et al, ).…”