Principles on assessment of costs on standard basis – necessary or proper

The judgement in Hennessey Glass and Aluminium Pty Ltd v Watpac Australia Pty Ltd [2007] QDC 57 McGill DCJ provides valuable guidance for practitioners as to whether a range of particular costs items should be permitted on an assessment on the standard basis, and the amounts which should be allowed for such items. The items in issue included counsel’s fees and fees paid to expert witnesses. The decision also examined GST implications for the recovery of legal costs.

Court Based Psychiatric Assessment: A Case for an Integrated and Diversionary Public Health Role

This article describes a follow-up study of 232 individuals who underwent psychiatric assessment by a Criminal Justice Mental Health Team (CJMHT) in 2001/2002, and also draws upon in-depth interviews conducted with 26 of the cohort. At assessment many people are identified with substance misuse problems, as homeless and with a history of psychiatric contact but in the main their problems are of insufficient severity to merit diversion to psychiatric hospital. The study mapped service contact, housing and offending in the 12 months following assessment and compared this to the 12 months prior to assessment, and found increased levels of service contact but also increased levels of offending and no decrease in homelessness. Thus assessment by the CJMHT brought few discernible advantages for the majority of clients. This was also the perception of the 26 clients who were interviewed. Their own perceptions of their lifestyle and the support that they deemed most valuable are described to identify means of enhancing the efficacy of court assessment.

A randomised trial of a psychosocial intervention for cancer patients integrated into routine care: The PROMPT study (promoting optimal outcomes in mood through tailored psychosocial therapies)

Background Despite evidence that up to 35% of patients with cancer experience significant distress, access to effective psychosocial care is limited by lack of systematic approaches to assessment, a paucity of psychosocial services, and patient reluctance to accept treatment either because of perceived stigma or difficulties with access to specialist psycho-oncology services due to isolation or disease burden. This paper presents an overview of a randomised study to evaluate the effectiveness of a brief tailored psychosocial Intervention delivered by health professionals in cancer care who undergo focused training and participate in clinical supervision. Methods/design Health professionals from the disciplines of nursing, occupational therapy, speech pathology, dietetics, physiotherapy or radiation therapy will participate in training to deliver the psychosocial Intervention focusing on core concepts of supportive-expressive, cognitive and dignity-conserving care. Health professional training will consist of completion of a self-directed manual and participation in a skills development session. Participating health professionals will be supported through structured clinical supervision whilst delivering the Intervention. In the stepped wedge design each of the 5 participating clinical sites will be allocated in random order from Control condition to Training then delivery of the Intervention. A total of 600 patients will be recruited across all sites. Based on level of distress or risk factors eligible patients will receive up to 4 sessions, each of up to 30 minutes in length, delivered face-to-face or by telephone. Participants will be assessed at baseline and 10-week follow-up. Patient outcome measures include anxiety and depression, quality of life, unmet psychological and supportive care needs. Health professional measures include psychological morbidity, stress and burnout. Process evaluation will be conducted to assess perceptions of participation in the study and the factors that may promote translation of learning into practice. Discussion This study will provide important information about the effectiveness of a brief tailored psychological Intervention for patients with cancer and the potential to prevent development of significant distress in patients considered at risk. It will yield data about the feasibility of this model of care in routine clinical practice and identify enablers and barriers to its systematic implementation in cancer settings.