Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law最新文献

Forensic psychiatry fellowship programs recruit applicants through a nonstandardized process that differs by program. Although there are deadlines, informal guidance, and more recent communication guidelines, perceived differences in recruitment practices persist between geographic regions, small and large programs, and newer and more well-established programs. In the wake of a survey of fellowship applicants that found mixed opinions surrounding the application process, U.S. forensic fellowship directors undertook a mixed method quantitative-qualitative survey of their colleagues to assess interest in a match as a potential improvement and factors influencing that interest (e.g., program size, age, and unfilled positions). With responses from all 46 active U.S. programs, results indicated broad support for principles of fairness, transparency, and minimizing pressure on applicants, with an almost perfectly divided interest in a match. Respondents supported the use of a centralized database to standardize the application process and favored certain exceptions for internal applicants. Hypotheses about the reasons underlying program directors' attitudes toward a match did not yield significant results, with only the size of a program approaching significance. This novel comprehensive survey of forensic fellowship directors offers a model for assessing and monitoring the evolution of application processes for medical subspecialties interested in expanding and improving their recruitment.

In recent decades, there has been increasing biomedical and public understanding of the role of autoimmunity in neuropsychiatric illness. Popular media have highlighted patients with psychiatric illnesses who were eventually diagnosed with autoimmune neuropsychiatric illnesses such as anti- N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis. Coverage of these cases has often drawn attention to the effects of misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis of such diseases in psychiatric patients. Autoimmune encephalitis can have varied presentations and often involves evaluation and management from multiple medical specialties. As a result, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding how courts might gauge the legal standard of care with regard to psychiatric workup of new-onset psychiatric symptoms, and the degree to which autoimmune encephalitis must be considered. In this article we provide a brief overview of autoimmune encephalitis and autoimmune psychosis, including current diagnostic approaches to these conditions. We review case law regarding the standard of care for psychiatric disorders caused by general medical conditions. Finally, we provide a medicolegal perspective on the responsibilities of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in the evaluation of possible autoimmune encephalitis.

The Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified (CSS-M) has been widely used as a measure of criminal attitudes. This analysis examined CSS-M scores in a large sample of outpatients with serious mental illnesses and a criminal legal system history. We compared total and subscale scores in our sample to scores from two other previously published U.S. studies in which the CSS-M was used, and evaluated associations between total CSS-M score and nine variables (age, educational attainment, gender, race, marital status, employment status, diagnostic category, substance use disorder comorbidity, and adverse childhood experiences (ACE) score). Scores were higher than in two prior U.S. studies involving other types of samples. Independently significant predictors of higher CSS-M scores included being younger (P < .001), having a higher ACE score (P < .001), being male (P = 03), not identifying as White (P < 001), not having a psychotic disorder (P < 001), and having a comorbid substance use disorder (P = 002). Future research should test the hypothesis that these factors increase risk for arrest and that arrest events, and subsequent criminal legal system involvement, are characterized by negative experiences and perceptions of poor procedural justice, which in turn underpin the negative opinions referred to as "criminal sentiments" or criminal attitudes.

Laws on competency to stand trial and fitness to plead are said to derive from "mute by visitation of God," a medieval English legal term referring to the inability to speak through no fault of one's own. The paper describes the relevant historical background, illustrative cases, and legal commentaries. Muteness by visitation of God arose to address a particular set of difficulties caused by the need to have medieval defendants agree to be tried. Competency to stand trial and fitness to plead, on the other hand, arose to address more general and enduring concerns, that putting people on trial when they were unable to understand or participate compromised the dignity and fairness of criminal proceedings. The origins of competency to stand trial and fitness to plead do not lie in medieval English attempts to persuade silent defendants to speak. They warrant their own historical exegesis.

Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) has strong evidence in support of its effectiveness in reducing suicide attempts, anger, impulsivity, and substance abuse. It has been implemented in a variety of forensic settings to help with these challenges, despite limited research on the efficacy of DBT within this population. The current study presents treatment outcomes from an established DBT program in a maximum-security forensic facility. Outcomes included self-reported functioning, behavioral outcomes, and assessment of DBT skills knowledge among inpatients who participated in either comprehensive DBT or DBT skills training. Behaviorally, the study found a significant decrease in rates of patient assaults and reduced use of "Pro re nata" (PRN) medication for anxiety or agitation over the course of DBT treatment. During the first six months of treatment, self-reported symptoms of depression, emotional and behavioral dysregulation, and psychological inflexibility significantly decreased. Within this time frame, patients also displayed a significant decrease in the use of dysfunctional coping skills and a significant increase in knowledge pertaining to emotion regulation and interpersonal effectiveness. The results of this study largely support the use of DBT in forensic settings.

Forensic psychiatrists may be asked to opine on neurological evidence or neurological diseases outside the scope of their expertise. This article discusses the value of involving experts trained in behavioral neurology in such cases. First, we describe the field of behavioral neurology and neuropsychiatry, the subspecialty available to both neurologists and psychiatrists focused on the behavioral, cognitive, and neuropsychiatric manifestations of neurological diseases. Next, we discuss the added value of behavioral neurologists in forensic cases, including assisting in the diagnostic evaluation for complex neuropsychiatric diseases, using expertise in localization to provide a strong scientific basis for linking neurodiagnostic testing to relevant neuropsychiatric symptoms, and assisting in relating these symptoms to the relevant legal question in cases where such symptoms may be less familiar to forensic psychiatrists, such as frontal lobe syndromes. We discuss approaches to integrating behavioral neurology with forensic psychiatry, highlighting the need for collaboration and mentorship between disciplines. Finally, we discuss several forensic cases highlighting the additional value of experts trained in behavioral neurology. We conclude that forensic psychiatrists should involve behavioral neurology experts when encountering neurological evidence that falls outside their scope of expertise, and the need for further cross-disciplinary collaboration and training.

There is a clear need for experts with the requisite knowledge and experience to offer medicolegal opinions pertaining to various neuropsychiatric conditions. There is also an important distinction between clinical and medicolegal roles, and the need for training and expertise applicable to forensic assessment. But there remain few available experts with credentials spanning neuropsychiatry and forensic assessment. This creates a dilemma whereby parties involved in litigation featuring neuropsychiatric illness or injury are frequently forced to choose between experts with either knowledge and skills applicable to neuropsychiatric conditions or experts with skills and experience applicable to forensic assessment. Either choice introduces risk. Whether flawed medicolegal opinions are a consequence of deficient medical knowledge or an inadequate forensic evaluation process, the result remains the same, with triers of fact potentially being exposed to problematic testimony. There is, however, a more fundamental problem that implicates patient care more broadly: spurious dichotomies created by the historical segregation of psychiatry and neurology. Optimizing clinical care for patients with neuropsychiatric conditions, improving medical education in support of such care, and enabling forensic neuropsychiatric assessment must then start with more proactive efforts to reintegrate psychiatry and neurology.

Competent forensic practice has required continued training and professional practice in differentiating between genuine and malingered presentations, especially within the spectrum of psychotic disorders. Historically, practitioners valued racial, ethnic, and cultural differences but often considered them as peripheral matters. In contemporary forensic practice, however, language and culture play preponderant roles. This commentary is focused on core features of malingering via a cultural lens. Three core, race-informed principles, such as biases against the African American Language, are highlighted and discussed. Related subjects for forensic practice include relevant clinical constructs such as malingering bias and "imposed etics," specifically, the imposition of mainstream values and discounting of cultural differences.