Prisoners in the emergency department: Lessons from a recent inquest.

The recent coronial finding in Victoria into the death of Joshua (Josh) Kerr highlights some of the challenges of treating patients who are in custody and under the supervision of custodial staff (prison officers or police) in the ED. Issues include ED clinicians' duty of care, roles and responsibilities of ED staff and custodial staff and the need for processes that facilitate collaboration and communication between ED clinicians and custodial staff.

Ethical decision-making: exploring the four main principles in nursing.

Nurses are regularly confronted with moral questions and ethical dilemmas in their practice, for example where a patient's decisions about their treatment conflict with the nurse's own views. While the standards contained in the Nursing and Midwifery Council The Code: Professional Standards of Practice and Behaviour for Nurses, Midwives and Nursing Associates provide nurses with an overarching framework to guide practice, it is important that nurses understand the four main principles that underpin ethical care - autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. This article examines these four principles and how they relate to nurses' ethical decision-making. The author also explores how nurses' ethics were tested by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Having an awareness of ethical decision-making can enhance nurses' practice by providing them with a theoretical framework for treating patients with dignity and respect.

Legal duty of care and the community nurse.

In this month's Policy column, the author explores the concepts of duty of care, forseeability and proximity, and how the community nurse can be better prepared when caring for the patient.

Informed Consent and Surrogate Interference at the Initiation of Community-Based Palliative Care Services.

Community-based palliative care (CBPC) clinicians sometimes contend with an ethically charged scenario when they encounter patients for the first time: The patient's spouse, or other loved one or caregiver, revokes the patient's valid informed consent to initiate care. While surrogates are usually motivated by protective instincts, there are other situations where surrogates act out of self-interest. This article considers whether it is ever ethically justified for an adult to revoke another adult's valid informed consent to initiate palliative care services. The article examines this scenario from three perspectives: the patient's capacity to give or relinquish informed consent, the surrogate's intent and use of substituted judgment or best interest, and the clinician's duty to provide clinical care. This ethical analysis argues that CBPC clinicians have an ethical responsibility to provide palliative care services for patients who have given valid informed consent for those services even when a surrogate acts as an interfering or oppositional force.

Public discourse narratives: from 'Secret Aid Worker' discontent to shifting power in humanitarian systems.

Public discourse is rich in meaning, reflecting consensus, dissent, and change. Yet, very little public discourse on the humanitarian sector has been authored by aid workers themselves. We conducted a thematic analysis of the 'Secret Aid Worker' (SAW) series, published in The Guardian newspaper between 2015 and 2018, the only corpus of data on humanitarian life experiences publicly accessible through mainstream media. Our research questions were twofold: how did authors frame their work and appraise humanitarian structures?; and how did they reflect and amplify humanitarian issues of the time? The main themes included: personal challenges of humanitarian life; characterisation of stakeholders; and systemic issues within the humanitarian sector. The SAW narratives reveal a powerful discourse of discontent. They planted seeds of change regarding shifting power, coloniality and racism, sexual abuse, and duty of care. We argue that such public discourse has symbolic power, calling for greater accountability, equity, and justice in remaking the future of the humanitarian sector.

Psychiatric Illness and Clinical Negligence: When Can "Secondary Victims" Successfully Claim for Damages? Recent Developments from the United Kingdom.

On January 11, 2024, the United Kingdom (U.K.) Supreme Court rendered its judgment in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, restricting the circumstances in which "secondary victims" can successfully claim for damages in clinical negligence cases. This ruling has provided welcome clarity regarding the scope of negligently caused "pure" psychiatric illness claims, but the judgment may well prove controversial. In this article, I trace the facts and opinion from the majority and also discuss an important dissenting opinion. I then reflect on what the ruling means for psychiatric illness claims by secondary victims, and more broadly on the implications for clinical negligence law. I suggest that while much-needed clarity has been injected in this area of the law, it is difficult, reading the majority of the Supreme Court's emphasis on the restricted scope of a medical practitioner's duty, to envision a scenario in which secondary victim could ever succeed in a clinical negligence context.

Protecting the integrity of children and young people's nursing as a distinct field of practice.

At certain points in nursing history, it has been necessary to make a case for children and young people to be cared for by specialist nurses educated to meet their specific needs. However, in 2018 the updated Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) standards of proficiency for registered nurses adopted a generic rather than field-specific approach. This article reiterates that children, young people and their families have unique needs that are best met by nurses who are trained specifically to care for them. The case is made from a historical and legal perspective, concluding with a proposal that in the best interests of children, young people and their families, the NMC should embed specific competencies for children's nurses into its standards of proficiency to future-proof this field of practice.

The role, readiness to change and training needs of the Athlete Health and Performance team members to safeguard athletes from interpersonal violence in sport: a mini review.

Safeguarding athletes from interpersonal violence (IV) in sport is an important topic of concern. Athlete Health and Performance (AHP) team members working with athletes have a professional, ethical, and moral duty to protect the health of athletes, prevent IV, and intervene when it occurs. However, little is known on their respective roles regarding IV in sport and their needs to fulfill their responsibility of safeguarding athletes. The aim of this review is to synthesize knowledge about the roles, readiness to change and training needs of AHP team members to navigate IV in sport. A total of 43 articles are included in the review. Results show that all AHP team members have a role to play in safeguarding athletes and should therefore be trained in the area of IV in sport. Overall, very little research has directly assessed AHP team members' needs to positively foster safety and eliminate IV in sport. There are common training needs for all types of AHP team members such as the ability to recognize signs and symptoms of IV in sport. However, there are also specific needs based on the role of the AHP team members such as ways of facilitating behavioural change for sport managers. Findings from this review are mostly experts' recommendations and should therefore be interpreted as such. The results of the review can guide the development of future research and recommendations.

Demonstrating the expertise of an expert witness in the civil court: Use of a concise CV after the judgment in Re C.

The suitability of an unregistered expert psychologist to give evidence to the Family Court was considered in Re C [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam). An important part of the judgment focused on the need for an expert witness to demonstrate, in a short, concise and relevant CV, why they have the expertise to give opinion evidence in the case. The judgment has important implications for experts in civil litigation, where the same issues arise. The case of Re C is reviewed and recommendations for a new format for part of expert reports provided in civil litigation are discussed.

The duty of care and the right to be cared for: is there a duty to treat the unvaccinated?

Vaccine hesitancy or refusal has been one of the major obstacles to herd immunity against Covid-19 in high-income countries and one of the causes for the emergence of variants. The refusal of people who are eligible for vaccination to receive vaccination creates an ethical dilemma between the duty of healthcare professionals (HCPs) to care for patients and their right to be taken care of. This paper argues for an extended social contract between patients and society wherein vaccination against Covid-19 is conceived as essential for the protection of the right of healthcare providers to be taken care of. Thus, a duty of care is only valid when those who can receive vaccination actually receive it. Whenever that is not the case, the continuing functioning of HCPs can only be perceived as supererogatory and not obligatory.

A guided framework for assessing off-label medication use in psychiatry.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to present a decision aid in the form of a flowchart, designed to assist psychiatrists in navigating the challenges of off-label medication use. This tool is believed to be the only one currently available that combines guidance from medical indemnity insurers, RANZCP guidelines, CATG frameworks, and relevant legislation to provide a practical guide for everyday psychiatric practice. CONCLUSIONS: There are clinical, legal, ethical, and financial considerations to take into account each time an off-label prescription is ordered. There is no legal barrier to prevent psychiatrists from prescribing off-label in Australia and New Zealand. The medication should be utilised if it is in the best interests of the patient. However, practitioners must be able to defend the rationale for their off-label medication use with evidence of sound quality. Off-label use medication use can lead to improved patient outcomes and quality of life. On the other hand, poor practice in off-label prescribing can result in adverse events, patient harm, legal implications, and damage to professional reputation. By evaluating available evidence, considering patient characteristics, obtaining informed consent, and documenting the rationale for off-label use, clinical decision-making can be enhanced whilst mitigating the risks associated with off-label prescribing.

Dual career (DC) experiences of Korean elite judokas before and at university.

The present study aims to explore the experiences of Korean elite judokas in managing dual career (DC) during: (a) pre-university years, (b) at the university, and (c) in preparation for the transition to the post-university life. We adopted an intrinsic case study design to gain a better understanding of the experiences of Korean elite judokas at a university. We aimed to explore a particular case in depth, focusing on the experiences of the individuals involved. Purposive sampling was applied to 12 DC athletes (seven male; five female) who are elite judokas and were in year 4 of university study at the time of the data collection. They studied at the same South Korean university and competed at an international level. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data and thematic analysis was applied. The analysis identified four main themes: (a) DC path of prioritising sport and maintaining education, (b) Increasing sport demands and their impact on athletes' DCs, (c) Specific career development barriers of Korean judokas, (d) Coping resources and strategies and support in need. The study discusses the unique challenges and barriers as well as coping strategies of Korean judoka based on the Athletic Career Transition model, highlighting the importance of sociocultural context in their experiences.

Predictors of Defensive Practices among Italian Psychiatrists: Additional Findings from a National Survey.

Background: Defensive medicine is characterized by medical decisions made primarily as a precaution against potential malpractice claims. For psychiatrists, professional responsibility encompasses not only the appropriateness of diagnosis and treatment but also the effects of their interventions on patients and their behaviors. Objective: To investigate the socio-demographic, educational, and occupational characteristics and work-related attitudes that may serve as predictors of defensive medicine among Italian psychiatrists. This research extends the results of a previous analysis based on a national survey. Methods: A secondary analysis of the database of a national survey on attitudes and behaviors of Italian psychiatrists regarding defensive medicine and professional liability was performed for this study. Results: Among 254 surveyed psychiatrists, 153 admitted to practicing defensive medicine, while 101 had this attitude with less than half of their patients. The first group was predominantly comprised of women (p = 0.014), who were younger in age (43.34 y 9.89 vs. 48.81 y 11.66, p < 0.001) and had fewer years of professional experience (12.09 y ± 9.8 vs. 17.46 y ± 11.2, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in prior involvement in complaints (p = 0.876) or the usual place of work (p = 0.818). The most prominent predictors for practicing defensive medicine were (1) considering guidelines and good clinical practices not only for their clinical efficacy but also or exclusively for reducing the risk of legal complaints for professional liability (OR = 3.62; 95%CI, 1.75-7.49), and (2) hospitalizing patients with violent intentions even if not warranted according to their mental state (OR = 2.28; 95%CI, 1.50-3.46, p < 0.001). Prioritizing protection from professional liability over patients' actual needs in prescribing or adjusting drug dosages and in involuntary hospitalization, as well as prescribing lower dosages than recommended for pregnant patients, were identified as additional predictors. Finally, years of professional experience exhibited a protective function against defensive practices. Conclusions: Psychiatrists advocate the need to implement a 'risk management culture' and the provision of more balanced duties in order to ensure ethical and evidence-based care to their patients. A particular source of concern stems from their professional responsibility towards not only the health of patients but also their behavior. However, these aspects conflict with a limited potential for assessment and intervention based on effective clinical tools. A reform of professional liability that considers the specificities of patients cared for by mental health services could contribute to reducing the risk of defensive medicine.

Vox clamantis in deserto: a survey among Italian psychiatrists on defensive medicine and professional liability.

Due to recent events, professional liability for psychiatrists in Italy is currently a matter of lively debate. Specifically, overwhelming pressure on psychiatrists' duties has been brought by regulatory developments, such as the closure of forensic psychiatric hospitals, with the consequent return of offenders to community-based care, and the mental health consequences of the pandemic. According to Italian courts, psychiatrists are not only responsible for diagnostic and therapeutic appropriateness but also for the effects of their interventions on patients, and their behaviors. The aim of this study was to explore the attitude and behaviors of Italian psychiatrists regarding defensive medicine and professional liability. A total sample of 254 psychiatrists was surveyed by means of a quantitative online questionnaire. Most psychiatrists reported practicing defensive medicine (no. 153/254, 60.2%) and felt that their position of guarantee compromised their work in healthcare for patients (no. 138/253, 54.3%). Age correlated inversely with acknowledgment of defensive practices (r = -0.245, p < 0.001), with younger physicians more prone to defensive medicine (p = 0.013), particularly for patients at risk of suicide or violence. Psychiatrists in 'closed' settings (hospital wards, residential and rehabilitation centers, mental health service units in prison) reported more malpractice claims (p = 0.037) and complaints (p = 0.031), as well as a greater propensity to act defensively. In the treatment of patients with violent behavior, suicidal ideation, dual diagnoses, and criminal convictions, defensive practices were associated more with perceived legal risks (r = 0.306, p < 0.001) than actual legal involvement (p > 0.05). Anxiety, anger, and restlessness were common reactions to legal complaints, involving no. 50/254 (19.7%) respondents, with 40% reporting impaired functioning. Most psychiatrists (no. 175/253, 68.9%) were concerned about both civil and criminal laws regarding their professional responsibility, but many were not fully informed about recent legislative regulations and younger physicians resulted scarcely trained in risk management (p < 0.001). In conclusion, our findings suggest that defensive medicine is a common phenomenon among psychiatrists and their position of guarantee drives this attitude. Education on legal implications and risk management should be provided starting from the university and continuing over time, to improve the knowledge of young and senior doctors on professional liability and inform their decision-making processes. This would also reduce defensive practices and improve the quality of healthcare. Considering the concerns of younger physicians, as well as of professionals working in acute and high-intensity medical care facilities, there is also an urgent need for a revision of the medical liability to ensure the sustainability of the National Health Service.

Review article: Detaining patients against their will: Can duty of care be used to justify detention and restraint in emergency departments?

Every day in EDs, clinicians are faced with situations where they need to decide whether to detain a patient for assessment and treatment. For patients who meet the relevant criteria, provisions of mental health legislation can be used. For other patients, clinicians often rely on so-called 'duty of care'. This article briefly explores this complex area of law, including the relevant legislation, common law principles and grey areas. It also proposes an approach to decision-making in this area.

Legal medicine implications of a multidisciplinary approach to managing Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome in Australia.

The medical profession has a fundamental obligation to accurately diagnose and effectively treat a range of diseases and conditions. In the case of Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome (TES), where there are no universally accepted clinical diagnostic criteria, a clear clinical diagnosis can pose significant challenges for healthcare providers and for subsequent appropriate management. "Nihilism" or an uncertain working diagnosis is not acceptable in the medical field and deserves further consideration. This paper explores the legal obligations that are placed upon healthcare professionals, both individually and as a part of a multidisciplinary team. This article analyses the responsibilities and expectations of medical professionals in diagnosing and treating complex medical conditions, such as TES. The authors address legal issues that must be considered for an effective operation of integrated medicine to enhance the overall quality of care and improving patient outcomes for those affected with underlying Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE).

Medicolegal Cases in Bariatric Surgery in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To evaluate the current state of bariatric medicolegal activity and explore the reasons of litigation in bariatric surgery. The underlying legal principles in bariatric medicolegal cases and most frequent pitfalls will also be discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: There is a growing number of litigations in bariatric surgery, particularly relating to complications and long waiting lists for bariatric surgery within the public-funded health systems. The main issues are related to consent, lack of follow-up, delayed identification of complications and lack of appropriate emergency management of complications, involving bariatric surgeons, clinicians, general practitioners and multidisciplinary team members. Appropriate multidisciplinary involvement pre- and postoperatively and robust follow-up protocols can help to mitigate the risks. Bariatric surgery requires a unique paradigm with a multidisciplinary approach both pre- and postoperatively to improve the long-term functional outcomes of patients. There is a rising incidence of medicolegal claims following bariatric surgery. The underlying reasons for this are multifactorial including an increase in the volume of surgery, high patient expectations, the incidence of long-term postoperative complications and the requirement of long-term follow-up.

Nurses' Perceptions of Ethical Conflicts When Caring for Patients with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused ethical challenges and dilemmas in care decisions colliding with nurses' ethical values. This study sought to understand the perceptions and ethical conflicts faced by nurses working on the frontline during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and the main coping strategies. A qualitative phenomenological study was carried out following Giorgi's descriptive phenomenological approach. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews until data saturation. The theoretical sample included 14 nurses from inpatient and intensive care units during the first and second waves of the pandemic. An interview script was used to guide the interviews. Data were analyzed following Giorgi's phenomenological method using Atlas-Ti software. Two themes were identified: (1) ethical conflicts on a personal and professional level; and (2) coping strategies (active and autonomous learning, peer support and teamwork, catharsis, focusing on care, accepting the pandemic as just another work situation, forgetting the bad situations, valuing the positive reinforcement, and humanizing the situation). The strong professional commitment, teamwork, humanization of care, and continuous education have helped nurses to deal with ethical conflicts. It is necessary to address ethical conflicts and provide psychological and emotional support for nurses who have experienced personal and professional ethical conflicts during COVID-19.

Ending the doctor-patient relationship.

OBJECTIVE: Terminating a therapeutic relationship can be particularly challenging and onerous for the treating medical practitioner. There are multiple reasons why a practitioner may desire to terminate the relationship, ranging from inappropriate behaviour and assault through to threatened or actual litigation. This paper provides psychiatrists as well as all doctors and support staff who work alongside them with a simple, step-by-step visual guide to terminating a therapeutic relationship, giving due consideration to their professional and legal obligations in line with common recommendations by medical indemnity organisations. CONCLUSIONS: If a practitioner's ability to manage the patient is inadequate or compromised due to an emotional, financial, or legal circumstance, it is reasonable to consider termination of the relationship. Practical steps such as taking contemporaneous notes, writing to the patient and their primary care doctor, ensuring continuity of healthcare, and communicating with authorities where appropriate have been identified as components commonly recommended by medical indemnity insurance organisations.

Informed or misinformed consent and use of modified texture diets in dysphagia.

BACKGROUND: Use of modified texture diets-thickening of liquids and modifying the texture of foods-in the hope of preventing aspiration, pneumonia and choking, has become central to the current management of dysphagia. The effectiveness of this intervention has been questioned. We examine requirements for a valid informed consent process for this approach and whether the need for informed consent for this treatment is always understood or applied by practitioners. MAIN TEXT: Valid informed consent requires provision of accurate and balanced information, and that agreement is given freely by someone who knows they have a choice. Current evidence, including surveys of practitioners and patients in different settings, suggests that practice in this area is often inadequate. This may be due to patients' communication difficulties but also poor communication-and no real attempt to obtain consent-by practitioners before people are 'put on' modified texture diets. Even where discussion occurs, recommendations may be influenced by professional misconceptions about the efficacy of this treatment, which in turn may poison the well for the informed consent process. Patients cannot make appropriate decisions for themselves if the information provided is flawed and unbalanced. The voluntariness of patients' decisions is also questionable if they are told 'you must', when 'you might consider' is more appropriate. Where the decision-making capacity of patients is in question, inappropriate judgements and recommendations may be made by substitute decision makers and courts unless based on accurate information. CONCLUSION: Research is required to examine the informed consent processes in different settings, but there is ample reason to suggest that current practice in this area is suboptimal. Staff need to reflect on their current practice regarding use of modified texture diets with an awareness of the current evidence and through the 'lens' of informed consent. Education is required for staff to clarify the importance of, and requirements for, valid informed consent and for decision making that reflects people's preferences and values.