• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Nordic journal of psychiatry. >Involuntary psychiatric admission: The referring general practitioners' assessment of patients' dangerousness and need for psychiatric hospital treatment
【24h】

Involuntary psychiatric admission: The referring general practitioners' assessment of patients' dangerousness and need for psychiatric hospital treatment

机译：非自愿精神科住院：转诊的全科医生对患者的危险性和精神科医院治疗需求的评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background: In Norway, GPs may decide to refer patients to involuntary psychiatric treatment. Internationally, there has been a discussion regarding criteria for involuntary admission. In Norway and in other countries where the treatment criterion is still used, some have suggested its removal. Aims: To examine which legal criteria GPs used to refer patients to involuntary admission, whether they had thought about using a different criterion, and on which information they based their decision. Methods: A total of 74 doctors who had referred patients to involuntary admission at one major Norwegian psychiatric hospital participated in semi-structured interviews. Results: In total, 38% (28) had applied the danger criterion only and 23% (17) had applied the treatment criterion only; 32% (24) had applied both criteria, while 7% (5) did not answer this question; 74% (55) said that they could not have chosen a different criterion; 45% (33) had based their decision on events/behaviour prior to and during the consultation, 43% (32) on events prior to the consultation only, and 8% (6) on information obtained during the consultation only; 4% (3) did not answer this question. None had used tools to aid in the assessment of danger. Clinical implications: The danger criterion was frequently used by the referring GPs. It is unclear how a removal of the treatment criterion from Norwegian legislation might impact clinical practice. Conclusions: While the danger criterion was applied by a majority, the treatment criterion was also chosen by many and was of importance to the doctors 'reasoning regarding referrals to involuntary admission. Most thought they could not have chosen a different criterion.
机译：背景：在挪威，全科医生可能会决定转诊患者接受非自愿的精神病治疗。在国际上，已经有关于非自愿入院标准的讨论。在挪威和仍在使用治疗标准的其他国家，有人建议将其删除。目的：检查全科医生使用哪些法律标准将患者转诊至非自愿入院，是否考虑过使用其他标准，以及他们基于哪些信息做出决定。方法：总共74位将患者转诊至一家挪威大型精神病医院的患者的医生参加了半结构式访谈。结果：总共38％（28）仅采用危险标准，23％（17）仅采用危险标准; 32％（24）应用了这两个标准，而7％（5）没有回答该问题; 74％（55）表示他们无法选择其他标准; 45％（33）的决策基于协商之前和之中的事件/行为，43％（32）的决策仅基于协商之前的事件，而8％（6）的决策仅基于协商期间的信息; 4％（3）没有回答这个问题。没有人使用工具来帮助评估危险。临床意义：危险标准经常被推荐的全科医生使用。目前尚不清楚从挪威法律中删除治疗标准将如何影响临床实践。结论：虽然危险标准被大多数人采用，但治疗标准也为许多人所选择，这对于医生转诊非自愿入院的原因很重要。大多数人认为他们不可能选择其他标准。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号