Is the French criminal psychiatric assessment in crisis?

The criminal psychiatric assessment in France seems to be facing growing criticism related to disagreements between experts and, on the other hand, a lack of interest of psychiatrists for the assessment. We start by explaining the current framework of the criminal psychiatric assessment in France, which differs from the assessment used in English-speaking countries, where Roman law applies. Then, we will describe the disagreements through a literature review and two clinical vignettes. Finally, we will try to understand the causes of discrepancies between experts and the reasons for a supposed lack of interest of the psychiatrists for the expertise. For this, we conducted a survey among the psychiatric experts. We individually questioned experts on the discrepancies and on their awareness of the expertise. We found that 75% of the experts we surveyed had already faced the divergent opinion of a colleague. In addition, the experts were divided on their conclusions related to the fictional scenario we gave them for an a priori assessment (a person with schizophrenia who was accused of murder), particularly in the specific contexts that we submitted to them. The main cause of disagreement between experts was the various schools of thought that influence the psychiatric experts in the forensic discussion and, therefore, the conclusions of a case. Moreover, the experts believed that the decrease in the number of psychiatric experts could be attributed to the adverse financial situation of the assessment, the considerable workload required, and the extensive responsibility that falls on the expert. Calling on a team of forensic experts to perform assessments seems to be the first solution to this crisis. Furthermore, if the experts were better compensated for the assessments, more people would want to undertake this work.

[Differences in psychiatric expertise of responsibility for schizophrenic persons accused of murder: Study with experts of the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence]. / Divergences dans l'expertise de responsabilité des personnes schizophrènes accusées d'homicide volontaire : enquête auprès des experts de la cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence.

INTRODUCTION: In France, forensic psychiatric assessment plays a central role in the relationship between psychiatry and justice. The psychiatric expert is commissioned to determine whether or not the accused has a mental disorder and to specify whether or not it affected discernment at the time of offense. Nowadays, psychiatric expertise is coming under more and more criticism, particularly regarding divergences between experts. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to find points of divergence between experts, try to understand causes and suggest ways to try to reduce them. METHODS: For this we conducted a study, between July 2012 and January 2013, with psychiatric experts of the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence through semi-structured interviews. We focused on a limited context: psychiatric expertise of responsibility for schizophrenic persons accused of murder. We questioned the experts about the issue of criminal liability of a person with schizophrenia in general but also in clinical situations we thought particularly involved in disagreements. RESULTS: We recruited a population of 17 psychiatrists, mostly males of average age of 58 years, working mostly in the department of adult psychiatry of a hospital. We highlighted the differences between the experts, first with regards to the issue of liability in general. Experts divided seemed to keep in majority (52.9 %) the alternative between abolition and alteration of discernment when faced with a schizophrenic person accused of murder. The differences were even more pronounced in specific contexts. Thus, the fact that the person had suffered from delirium at the time of the offense led half of the experts (47.1 %) to conclude a systematic abolition of discernment, while the other half made such a conclusion when the delirium was directly linked to the facts. Discontinuation of neuroleptic treatment, drug abuse or existence of premeditation changed the conclusions of the experts in half the cases, more in the sense of an increased accountability in the cases of drug abuse or premeditation, and in the direction of a reduction of liability in case of cessation of treatment. The denial of facts by the accused caused fewer disagreements between experts. Among experts, 76.5 % had already observed differences, which, according to them, were based primarily on schools of thought, or personal views (64.7 %), which could distort clinical evaluation and especially forensic interpretation of the relationship between pathology and facts. The experts thought it was possible and desirable to reduce differences and proposed different solutions for this, especially the return to dual expertise and colleges of experts. DISCUSSION: Our results were consistent with those in the literature. Based on proposals from experts and data from the literature, we identified five perspectives likely to reduce differences: first it would be useful to put in place a better specific training in forensic psychiatry and expertise, not only theoretical but also in terms of practical training through tutoring. We would identify a jurisprudence in forensic psychiatric assessment and identify consensual points. It would be good to allow experts to acquire sufficient experience not just through tutorials but also by statutory changes. Moments of exchange between experts - including a return to dual expertise and the organization of work meeting - could also reduce differences. Finally, we propose legislative changes: not only to rewrite the paragraph 2 of Article 122-1 of the French Penal Code, but also to give priority to the expertise of responsibility on the expertise of dangerousness. CONCLUSION: We showed that there were differences between the experts mainly concerned with the forensic interpretation, and that they seemed linked to schools of thought or to personal views of each expert. To reduce the differences, we discussed five perspectives.

[Differences in psychiatric expertise of responsibility: Assessment and initial hypotheses through a review of literature]. / Divergences dans l'expertise psychiatrique de responsabilité : bilan et premières hypothèses à travers une revue de la littérature.

INTRODUCTION: Forensic psychiatric assessment regarding liability ensures a balance between justice and psychiatry. In France, criminal assessment is not contradictory. The psychiatric expert is commissioned by judges to determine whether or not the accused has a mental disorder and specify whether it affects discernment and control of actions at the time of offense. Its mission focuses on the mental element required to constitute an offense, and is structured around Article 122-1 of the Criminal Code. This article, composed of two paragraphs, distinguishes the framework of the abolition of discernment ­ a cause of non-imputability and therefore of a statement of lack of criminal responsibility due to mental disorder ­ and the framework of the alteration of discernment. Nowadays expertise seems to meet discomfort, with criticism focusing on possible differences among psychiatric experts, without specific studies having been conducted to confirm it. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to identify the main points of disagreement between psychiatric experts and to propose explicative hypotheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this, we carried out a literature review on PubMed, Science Direct and Cairn, and studied the report of the 2007 public hearing on forensic psychiatric assessment with contributions from different authors. The keywords were: forensic psychiatry, psychiatric court report, psychiatric expertise, differences among experts, legal responsibility, and discernment. We defined differences as disagreements between experts, or as a mismatch in conclusions and approaches of experts. RESULTS: The differences among experts concerned mainly forensic interpretation, i.e. the discussion of the relationship between pathology and offense, particularly in contexts that involve a larger forensic discussion, including interruption of medication, use of drugs, association with antisocial personality, premeditation, denial of facts, especially when the accused suffers from a mental illness (especially schizophrenia). For a finding of abolition of discernment, an expert must consider two requirements, one temporal (the mental disease must be active during offense) and the other causal that involves seeking a direct and exclusive relationship between the offence and the mental state, according to expert jurisprudence. Some experts do not comply with these two requirements or this jurisprudence, whence differences. There were also diagnostic differences and disputes relating to the concept of "alteration of discernment". Disagreements appeared to be related primarily to personal ideologies or different schools of thought that influenced interpretations and conclusions of experts, e.g. accountability as a therapeutic response for the psychotic person. Then, the lack of clarity of expert mission regarding necessary causal relationship ­ between any disease and crime ­ to demonstrate to conclude an abolition of discernment, could also contribute to differences. Moreover, time available to achieve the mission is too short and the expert would not devote enough time to an expert examination, which could lead to less good expertise and differences; especially as observed clinical examination in expertise is sometimes difficult, misleading, due to pathological reticence of accused mentally ill but also sometimes due to possible simulations. Finally, the low quality of some expert reports ­ due in part to the less well-trained experts, but also the particular conditions of achievement of expertise, especially in prisons ­ were mentioned by some authors as causes of differences. DISCUSSION: It appears from this review of literature that differences mainly concern forensic interpretation and are mainly explained by ideologies. This synthesis is a preliminary work prior to a study among psychiatric experts.

[Patients' perception of seclusion in psychiatry: ethical perspectives]. / L'isolement en psychiatrie: point de vue des patients et perspectives éthiques.

OBJECTIVE: Although seclusion is legally sanctioned in France, its use remains controversial, and debate continues over ethical and therapeutic aspects of the practice. Seclusion continues to be widely used in the management of disturbed behaviour in hospitalized patients. Although recent studies serve to strengthen the link between the use of seclusion and negative patient responses, they are limited in extending our understanding of the seclusion experience. The objective of this work was two-fold: to examine the perceptions and experiences of patients about their seclusion experience and then suggest ways of improving the use of seclusion in relation to an ethical perspective. METHOD: We conducted face-to-face semi-structured interviews with inpatients in a French Public Psychiatric Hospital, 3 weeks after their seclusion. They were conducted until no new ideas emerged in the content analysis, comprising 30 patients. Interviews were conducted using an interview guide by a physician. Specific attention was paid to their perceptions of seclusion. This guide was based on the concepts of medical ethics (autonomy, beneficence, non-malfeasance). Interviews were retranscribed and content analysis was performed by two of the authors who were skilled in textual analysis. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 15.0 software. RESULTS: Autonomy was challenged by 50% of interviewed patients. For 70% of patients, there was a lack of information and explanation during the seclusion on therapeutics, practices, procedures, expected length of time in seclusion and behaviours. This can contribute to perception of this process as punishment expressed by the patients. The dominant view of patients was that more effective communication about seclusion was needed. A majority of patients perceived the beneficence of the health professionals even if most of them did not express a benefit from this experience: only 26% believed that seclusion made them calm down and 36% that seclusion helped them to feel and behave better. The level and the quality of the relationship with staff during and following the seclusion experience was a major source of satisfaction for patients and can counter-balance their negative perception of seclusion. The non-malfeasance was questioned by patients. The therapeutic value of seclusion was not recognized by a majority of them. Seclusion from the patient's perspective appears to invoke a complex range of feelings that include helplessness (76%), anger (60%), humiliation (60%), depression (50%), and fear (63%). For 60% of patients, the act of placing them in seclusion had a profound negative impact. Seventy-six percent of them considered that seclusion could be prevented. CONCLUSION: Despite advances in our knowledge and understanding of mental illness, seclusion continues, and is likely to continue, as a treatment option for a number of patients. In our study, a certain number of trends were observed. Globally, there is some tension concerning ethical principles. Attention to the specific needs of patients while in seclusion may serve to reduce the punitive connotations linked to the practice. What is needed is a permanent ethical reevaluation of seclusion. For this purpose, healthcare professional staffs may be useful for a truly ethical reflection. The aim is to recognize the patient as the agent of his/her own empowerment through appropriate information. This approach should not only provide the patient with the opportunity to understand why the seclusion occurred, but also some means for overcoming the negative effects of the procedure.

Validation of a professionals' satisfaction questionnaire with electronic medical records (PSQ-EMR) in psychiatry.

BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMR) are currently being implemented in psychiatric hospitals throughout Europe. The perceptions of health care professionals can contribute important information that may predict their acceptance of and desired mode of use for EMR, thus guiding EMR implementation. AIMS: To develop a self-administered instrument designed to assess health care professionals' satisfaction regarding EMR in a psychiatric hospital, based only on the professional point of view, according to the psychometric standards. METHODS: The development was supervised by a steering committee and undertaken by three standard steps. Item generation was derived from 115 face-to-face interviews with health care professionals in a French, public, psychiatric hospital. The item-reduction process resulted in a 25-item questionnaire. The validation process was based on construct validity, reliability and some aspects of external validity. RESULTS: The final version of the questionnaire contained 25 items that described five dimensions, leading to a global score. The factor structure accounted for 72% of the total variance. Internal consistency was satisfactory (item-internal consistency over 0.40 and Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.86 to 0.95). The scalability was satisfactory with INFIT statistics inside an acceptable range. Scores of dimensions were strongly positively correlated with visual analogue scale scores (all p < 0.001). External validity showed statistical associations between scores and age, gender, seniority in psychiatry and ward type. Participation rate was 66%. CONCLUSION: The availability of a reliable and valid questionnaire (professionals' satisfaction questionnaire with electronic medical records [PSQ-EMR]) concerning health care professionals' satisfaction regarding EMR in psychiatry, exclusively generated from interviews with health care professionals, enables legitimate feedback to be incorporated into EMR implementation in order to formulate a high-quality health care.

[Psychometric properties of the Activities Daily Life Scale (ADL)]. / Caractéristiques psychométriques de l'échelle des activités de la vie quotidienne (AVQ).

OBJECTIVE: Deficits in social functioning are an important core feature of mental health. Recently in France, the Activities Daily Life (ADL) scale has been proposed by the French authorities to assess social functioning for all hospitalized patients in a psychiatric ward. The perspective is to use this scale in the financing and organization of mental health services in France. The ADL scale is a 6-item (dressing/undressing, walking/mobility, eating/drinking, using toilets, behaviour, relationships/communication) heteroquestionnaire completed by a health care professional at the beginning of each hospitalization, assessing functioning of patients suffering from mental health diseases. However, limited consensus exists on this scale. The psychometric properties of the ADL scale have not been assessed. There is a pressing need for detailed examination of its performance. The aim of this study was to explore ADL psychometric properties in a sample of hospitalized patients in a psychiatric ward. METHOD: We retrospectively analyzed data for all episodes of care delivered to hospitalized patients in a psychiatric ward in our French Public Hospital from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008. The study involved retrospective review of administrative and medical databases. The following data were collected: age, gender, diagnoses based on the International Classification of Diseases - 10th version, ADL scale and Assessment of Social Self-Sufficiency scale (ASSS). The psychometric properties were examined using construct validity, reliability, external validity, reproducibility and sensitivity to change. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 15.0 and WINSTEP software. RESULTS: A total of 1066 patients completed the ADL scale. Among them, 49.7% were male, mean age was 36.5 ± 10.8, and 83.5% were single. Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders (40.0%), mood disorders (27.9%) and mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use (12%) were the most common diagnoses. Factor analysis with varimax rotation identified a 2-factor structure accounting for 82% of the total variance. The first dimension (ADL 1) comprised four items and represented personal care activities. The second dimension (ADL 2) comprised two items and represented social functioning. A floor effect was reported for ADL 1 and its unidimensionality was not satisfactory: two items showed an INFIT statistic outside the acceptable range. Internal consistency was satisfactory for the two dimensions: each item achieved the 0.40 standard for item-internal consistency. The correlation of each item with its contributory dimension was higher than with the other (item discriminant validity). Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged over 0.70 in the whole sample. Concerning external validity, positive correlations were not systematically found between ADL and ASSS dimensions. The score of ADL 1 had medium to high correlations with four dimensions scores of the ASSS, while the score of ADL 2 were not at all or weakly correlated with ASSS dimension scores. Globally, ADL did not cover sentimental life and social relationships. There were statistical associations between ADL and age or gender: women and subjects older than 60 had a higher level of dependency. We didn't find any association with marital status or diagnoses. The ADL scale presented a good reproducibility but was not sensitive to change. CONCLUSION: The psychometric properties of the ADL scale were not sufficient for several parameters such as validity or sensitivity to change, contrary to other available French scales. The use of a heteroquestionnaire rather than a self-administered questionnaire should be discussed by professionals and the French authorities. These results should be taken into account in the use of the ADL scale for the economic and administrative management of psychiatry. Further research should be conducted to confirm these results.

[Malignant hyperthermia and neuroleptic malignant syndrome: report of 4 clinical cases]. / Hyperthermie maligne et syndrome malin des neuroleptiques A propos de quatre observations cliniques.

Very numerous publication in the literature suggest the probable relationship between three clinical entities: peranesthesic malignant hyperthermia (PMH), exercitional malignant hyperthermia (EMH) and neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS). We briefly describe the clinical history and define, as subjects of research, the personal and familial histories of neuromuscular disease of 4 of our patients having presented with neuroleptic malignant syndrome, as recommended by the European group on malignant hyperthermia, the reference contracture test on neuromuscular fibers and anatomic and cytopathological investigations of neuromuscular fibers. We compare the results for our 4 patients having presented with neuroleptic malignant syndrome and their courses. We confirm the necessity of pursuing both case history and laboratory research in order to elucidate the debate on the hypothesis of a common etiopathogenesis for the 3 syndrome entities.