Working with people who have killed: The experience and attitudes of forensic mental health clinicians working with forensic patients

Forensic mental health (FMH) clinicians sometimes feel unsupported and unprepared for their work. This article explores their experiences of working in a FMH setting in Australia. The research examined the clinical context of clinicians working with forensic patients (FP), particularly those individuals who have killed while experiencing a mental illness. A qualitative, exploratory design was selected. Data were collected through focus groups and individual interviews with hospital and community-based forensic clinicians from all professional groups: psychiatric medicine, social work, psychology, mental health nursing, occupational therapy, and psychiatric service officers. The main themes identified were orientation and adjustment to FMH, training in FMH, vicarious traumatization, clinical debriefing and clinical supervision, and therapeutic relationships. Participants described being frustrated and unsupported in making the transition to working with FP and felt conflicted by the emotional response that was generated when developing therapeutic relationships. Recommendations include the development of programmes that might assist clinicians and address gaps in service delivery, such as clinical governance, targeted orientation programmes, and clinical supervision.

Comparison of medication policies to guide nursing practice across seven Victorian health services

Objectives The objective of this paper is to review and compare the content of medication management policies across seven Australian health services located in the state of Victoria. Methods The medication management policies for health professionals involved in administering medications were obtained from seven health services under one jurisdiction. Analysis focused on policy content, including the health service requirements and regulations governing practice. Results and Conclusions The policies of the seven health services contained standard information about staff authorisation, controlled medications and poisons, labelling injections and infusions, patient self-administration, documentation and managing medication errors. However, policy related to individual health professional responsibilities, single- and double-checking medications, telephone orders and expected staff competencies varied across the seven health services. Some inconsistencies in health professionals' responsibilities among medication management policies were identified. What is known about the topic? Medication errors are recognised as the single most preventable cause of patient harm in hospitals and occur most frequently during administration. Medication management is a complex process involving several management and treatment decisions. Policies are developed to assist health professionals to safely manage medications and standardise practice; however, co-occurring activities and interruptions increase the risk of medication errors. What does this paper add? In the present policy analysis, we identified some variation in the content of medication management policies across seven Victorian health services. Policies varied in relation to medications that require single- and double-checking, as well as by whom, nurse-initiated medications, administration rights, telephone orders and competencies required to check medications. What are the implications for practitioners? Variation in medication management policies across organisations is highlighted and raises concerns regarding consistency in governance and practice related to medication management. Lack of practice standardisation has previously been implicated in medication errors. Lack of intrajurisdictional concordance should be addressed to increase consistency. Inconsistency in expectations between healthcare services may lead to confusion about expectations among health professionals moving from one healthcare service to another, and possibly lead to increased risk of medication errors.

Out-of-hours co-operatives: General practitioner satisfaction with governance and working arrangements

Objective. General practice co-operatives have led to significant improvements in quality of life for general practitioners. Little is known about general practitioners’ own experiences with the working arrangements and governance of co-operatives. This study investigates GP satisfaction, the working environment, governance and future developments in co-operatives. Methods. A questionnaire was sent to GPs in two co-operatives in the Republic of Ireland, covering mixed urban and rural areas. Results. Of 221 GPs in the co-operatives, 82% responded and confirmed the co-operatives’ positive effects on their lives. However, 57% still received requests for out-of-hours care while off duty, most commonly from patients who preferred to see their own doctor. Half felt overburdened by out-of-hours work, especially those over 40 y of age. Twenty-five per cent were dissatisfied with the GP complaints mechanism. The majority (63%) would prefer a GP/ health board partnership for the organization of out of hours, while 23% wanted sole responsibility. GPs indicated a strong need for better ancillary services such as nursing, mental health, dentistry, pharmacy and social work. Access to records is an important issue in terminal care and mental illness. Conclusion. While GP co-operatives are a success story for general practice, they will work better for general practitioners and their patients if nursing, mental health, dentistry, pharmacy and social services are improved. Support and training is needed in mental health, palliative and emergency care to increase competence and reduce stress. GPs are willing to work with health authorities in further co-operative development. More attention needs to be paid to the complaints and suggestions of GPs in the running and governance of their co-operatives.