"Everyone means well but the one person who's really going to go to bat" - experiences and perspectives of substitute decision makers in caring for their loved ones with serious mental illness

In the era of on-going efforts to empower persons with mental illness to be independent decision makers as informed by the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD), family members acting as substitute decision makers (SDM) for people suffering from disabling serious mental illness (SMI) remain an integral part of the medical-legal system in psychiatric care in many parts of the world, including Canada; yet their experiences and perspectives are rarely studied. This explorative qualitative study examines the lived experiences and reflections of 14 family member SDMs in Toronto, Canada. Five key themes related to being SDM emerged: 1) Varied subjective understanding of the responsibility and authority of the SDM role; 2) Varied role demands and impact on SDMs' lives; 3) Challenges in dealing with the mental health system; 4) Leveraging decision making status to promote patient care; and 5) SDM role impact on family relationships. The need to improve SDM understanding of their role, acknowledging their value and care-taker burden, finding a balance for their involvement, and improving their support in efforts to enhance care for the patients are discussed.

Conducting remote medical asylum evaluations in the United States during COVID-19: Clinicians' perspectives on acceptability, challenges and opportunities

Background

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, medical evaluations for asylum are being performed predominantly remotely. We sought to describe these evaluations and identify barriers.

Methodology

This study utilized an online survey to assess clinician perspectives and experiences regarding remote asylum evaluations.

Results

Clinicians reported positive experiences regarding remote interpretation (85%, 51/60), history taking (82.4%, 61/74), rapport building (81.3%, 61/75), and conducting the psychiatric exam (65.7%, 44/67). Concerns were more frequently reported with performing remote physical examinations (83.3%, 15/18). Although the majority denied challenges with technology (62.5%, 45/72), internet (60.8%, 45/74) or clients having difficulty acquiring technology (58.6%, 41/70) or finding private spaces (54.2%, 39/72), these aspects did represent barriers.

Discussion

Remote evaluations were relatively easy to perform and acceptable to clinicians. This may facilitate easier access for asylum seekers beyond the pandemic.

"Better than having no evaluation done": a pilot project to conduct remote asylum evaluations for clients in a migrant encampment in Mexico

Background

Asylum evaluations are highly specialized medico-legal encounters to collect physical or mental health evidence for use in immigration proceedings. Although the field of asylum medicine is growing, access to these evaluations is still inadequate, particularly for those in United States immigration detention or other forms of custody, such as under the U.S. Migrant Protection Protocols or “Remain in Mexico” policy. Given advances in telehealth in recent years and growing evidence of similar outcomes with in-person management, it seems prudent to examine whether remote modalities may also be effective for conducting mental health asylum evaluations in hard-to-reach populations.

Methods

We analyzed the responses of 12 U.S. clinicians who conducted 25 cross-border remote mental health evaluations with clients in Mexico prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and completed a post-evaluation survey regarding their impressions and experiences of the remote encounter. Data were coded through a process of thematic analysis.

Results

The average evaluation time was 2.3 h, slightly shorter than might be expected from an in-person encounter. Five themes emerged from the coding process: rapport building, achieving overall goal, comparison of in-person vs. remote, technical issues, and coordination. Clinicians encountered a number of challenges including technical difficulties and a decreased ability to establish rapport. Nearly uniformly, however, clinicians noted that despite difficulties, they were able achieve the goals of the evaluation, including rapport building and diagnosis.

Conclusion

Remote evaluations appear to achieve their intended goal and may be useful in expanding legal options for hard-to-reach asylum seekers.

The Litigation Complexity of Posttraumatic Headaches

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores the workings of the legal process in posttraumatic headache (PTH) claims by discussing representative court cases, the approaches taken by both plaintiff and defense attorneys in evaluating a client with PTH, and the role of the expert witness. This discussion also examines the question of whether or not litigation prolongs the symptoms of PTH and concussion, looking at the issues of malingering and the psychological effect of litigation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Litigation prolongs recovery of PTH, primarily not from malingering but rather due to the psychological mindset of the plaintiff as created by the litigation process. Just as the medical community struggles with PTH diagnosis, mechanism, and treatment, the legal system grapples with identifying valid claims for PTH. Psychological support is an important component for PTH recovery to more effectively deal with the psychological impact of litigation and the concept of perceived injustice.