28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Defining outcome measures of hospitalization for assessment in the Japanese forensic mental health scheme: a Delphi study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A new legislation concerning forensic mental health was established by the Japanese Government in 2005, the “Act on Medical Care and Treatment for the Persons Who Had Caused Serious Cases under the Condition of Insanity,” or the Medical Treatment and Supervision (MTS) Act. Since it was passed, however, there has been broad controversy over Hospitalization for Assessment (HfA), the first stage of the MTS scheme.

          Methods

          Following a comprehensive literature search to assemble a list of candidates, we conducted a Delphi study to establish standard outcome measures for HfA.

          Results

          Five Delphi rounds were conducted by 19 panelists including medical practitioners and lawyers. A total of 139 items were accepted as outcome measures for HfA based on panel agreement.

          Conclusion

          The Delphi study established a list of HfA outcome measures for the MTS act, which will contribute to the optimization of the new forensic mental health system in Japan.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1752-4458-9-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          An international consensus study of neuroleptic malignant syndrome diagnostic criteria using the Delphi method.

          The lack of generally accepted diagnostic criteria for neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) impedes research and clinical management of patients receiving antipsychotic medications. The purpose of this study was to develop NMS diagnostic criteria reflecting a broad consensus among clinical knowledge experts, represented by an international multispecialty physician panel. Eleven psychiatrists, 2 neurologists, 2 anesthesiologists, and 2 emergency medicine specialists participated in a formal Delphi consensus procedure. A core bibliography consisting of 12 prominent, current reviews of the NMS literature was identified by an objective, comprehensive electronic search strategy. Each panel member was given a copy of these references and asked to examine them before commencing the survey process. After reviewing the core bibliography, panel members were asked to list any clinical signs or symptoms or diagnostic studies that they believed, on the basis of their knowledge and clinical experience, were useful in making a diagnosis of NMS. In subsequent survey rounds, panel members assigned priority points to these items, and items that failed to receive a minimum priority score were eliminated from the next round. Information about individual panel member responses was fed back to the group anonymously in the form of the group median or mean and the number of members who had ranked or scored each survey item. The a priori consensus endpoint was defined operationally as a change of 10% or less in the mean priority score for any individual item, and an average absolute value change of 5% or less across all items, between consecutive rounds. The survey was conducted from January 2009 through September 2009. Consensus was reached on the fifth round regarding the following criteria: recent dopamine antagonist exposure, or dopamine agonist withdrawal; hyperthermia; rigidity; mental status alteration; creatine kinase elevation; sympathetic nervous system lability; tachycardia plus tachypnea; and a negative work-up for other causes. The panel also reached a consensus on the relative importance of these criteria and on the following critical values for quantitative criteria: hyperthermia, > 100.4°F or > 38.0°C on at least 2 occasions; creatine kinase elevation, at least 4 times the upper limit of normal; blood pressure elevation, ≥ 25% above baseline; blood pressure fluctuation, ≥ 20 mm Hg (diastolic) or ≥ 25 mm Hg (systolic) change within 24 hours; tachycardia, ≥ 25% above baseline; and tachypnea, ≥ 50% above baseline. These diagnostic criteria significantly advance the field because they represent the consensus of an international multispecialty expert panel, include critical values, provide guidance regarding the relative importance of individual elements, and are less influenced by particular theoretical biases than most previously published criteria. They require validation before being applied in clinical settings. © Copyright 2011 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            First aid recommendations for psychosis: using the Delphi method to gain consensus between mental health consumers, carers, and clinicians.

            Members of the general public often lack the knowledge and skills to intervene effectively to help someone who may be developing a psychotic illness before appropriate professional help is received. We used the Delphi method to determine recommendations on first aid for psychosis. An international panel of 157 mental health consumers, carers, and clinicians completed a 146-item questionnaire about how a member of the public could help someone who may be experiencing psychosis. The panel members rated each questionnaire item according to whether they believed the statement should be included in the first aid recommendations. The results were analyzed by comparing consensus rates across the 3 groups. Three rounds of ratings were required to consolidate consensus levels. Eighty-nine items were endorsed by >or=80% of panel members from all 3 groups as essential or important for psychosis first aid. These items were grouped under the following 9 headings: how to know if someone is experiencing psychosis; how to approach someone who may be experiencing psychosis; how to be supportive; how to deal with delusions and hallucinations; how to deal with communication difficulties; whether to encourage the person to seek professional help; what to do if the person does not want help; what to do in a crisis situation when the person has become acutely unwell; what to do if the person becomes aggressive. These recommendations will improve the provision of first aid to individuals who are developing a psychotic disorder by informing the content of training courses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Forensic mental health.

              P. Mullen (2000)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                shiina-akihiro@faculty.chiba-u.jp
                iyom@faculty.chiba-u.jp
                y-igarashi@faculty.chiba-u.jp
                Journal
                Int J Ment Health Syst
                Int J Ment Health Syst
                International Journal of Mental Health Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1752-4458
                28 January 2015
                2015
                : 9
                : 7
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Psychiatry, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, Japan
                [ ]Chiba University Center for Forensic Mental Health, Chiba, Japan
                [ ]Department of Psychiatry, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan
                [ ]Division of Law and Psychiatry, Chiba University Center for Forensic Mental Health, Chiba, Japan
                Article
                220
                10.1186/1752-4458-9-7
                4328080
                8d01d8b0-b602-428c-bf32-3ef724cf7c8a
                © Shiina et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 28 September 2014
                : 24 January 2015
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Neurology
                forensic mental health,delphi study,the medical treatment and supervision act,hospitalization for assessment,outcome measure

                Comments

                Comment on this article