We are upgrading the repository! A content freeze is in effect until December 11, 2024. New submissions or changes to existing items will not be allowed during this period. All content already published will remain publicly available for searching and downloading. Updates will be posted in the Website Upgrade 2024 FAQ in the sidebar Help menu. Reach out to escholarship@umassmed.edu with any questions.
Clinical encounters with outpatient coercion at the CMHC: questions of implementation and efficacy
| dc.contributor.author | Geller, Jeffrey L. | |
| dc.date | 2022-08-11T08:10:23.000 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-08-23T17:06:17Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-08-23T17:06:17Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1992-04-01 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2010-11-18 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Community Ment Health J. 1992 Apr;28(2):81-94. | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0010-3853 (Linking) | |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 1611860 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/45055 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Clinical encounters with three outpatients at a CMHC who were managed with alternating periods of voluntary or uncoerced and involuntary or coerced treatment are presented. The two periods of coerced community treatment--of eight months and then two to four years duration--produced positive results quite distinct from the periods of uncoerced community treatment. In discussing the implementation and efficacy of coerced outpatient treatment at the CMHC, the author addresses legal, clinical, and resource issues which form the basis for seven arguments often heard as to why staffs at CMHCs hesitate to employ involuntary or coercive interventions. | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | |
| dc.relation | <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=1611860&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a> | |
| dc.relation.url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00754275 | |
| dc.subject | Adult | |
| dc.subject | *Ambulatory Care | |
| dc.subject | Chronic Disease | |
| dc.subject | *Coercion | |
| dc.subject | Commitment of Mentally Ill | |
| dc.subject | Community Mental Health Centers | |
| dc.subject | Female | |
| dc.subject | Hospitals, Psychiatric | |
| dc.subject | Humans | |
| dc.subject | Length of Stay | |
| dc.subject | Male | |
| dc.subject | Massachusetts | |
| dc.subject | Mental Disorders | |
| dc.subject | Middle Aged | |
| dc.subject | Psychiatric Status Rating Scales | |
| dc.subject | Treatment Refusal | |
| dc.subject | Health Services Research | |
| dc.subject | Mental and Social Health | |
| dc.subject | Psychiatric and Mental Health | |
| dc.subject | Psychiatry | |
| dc.subject | Psychiatry and Psychology | |
| dc.title | Clinical encounters with outpatient coercion at the CMHC: questions of implementation and efficacy | |
| dc.type | Journal Article | |
| dc.source.journaltitle | Community mental health journal | |
| dc.source.volume | 28 | |
| dc.source.issue | 2 | |
| dc.identifier.legacycoverpage | https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/psych_cmhsr/165 | |
| dc.identifier.contextkey | 1648066 | |
| html.description.abstract | <p>Clinical encounters with three outpatients at a CMHC who were managed with alternating periods of voluntary or uncoerced and involuntary or coerced treatment are presented. The two periods of coerced community treatment--of eight months and then two to four years duration--produced positive results quite distinct from the periods of uncoerced community treatment. In discussing the implementation and efficacy of coerced outpatient treatment at the CMHC, the author addresses legal, clinical, and resource issues which form the basis for seven arguments often heard as to why staffs at CMHCs hesitate to employ involuntary or coercive interventions.</p> | |
| dc.identifier.submissionpath | psych_cmhsr/165 | |
| dc.contributor.department | Department of Psychiatry | |
| dc.source.pages | 81-94 |
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
A Public Health Framework for the State Mental Health Authority: A Call for Action by Massachusetts Consumers and Family MembersDuring the Spring of 2006, Consumer Quality Initiatives (CQI) conducted 20 focus groups across the state, 12 with adults with mental illness, 3 with parents of youth with serious emotional disorder, 2 with youth with SED, 1 with family members of adult consumers, and 2 with youth in transition. Supported by a contract with Massachusetts Department of Mental Health (DMH), the goal was to assist DMH in framing the criteria for its upcoming reprocurement. Our findings reveal a frustration with an approach to health care delivery that focuses primarily on the provision of psychiatric care (egs, medication, therapy, hospitalization). We reviewed the focus group reports to identify the most significant themes, which clustered within eight broad categories.
-
Rights, wrongs, and the dilemma of coerced community treatmentAn outpatient treatment approach directed to patients with histories of psychotically based dangerousness, poor compliance, and recidivism is described. Cases are presented that suggest favorable outcomes of this approach, but the coercive nature of the treatment raises questions about the psychiatrist's violation of patients' rights and transgression of ethical standards. If psychiatrists are to successfully treat the most difficult chronic patients, can we do it without legally sanctioned, benevolent, coercive treatments? One model of such treatment is outpatient commitment. There is concern that without sound outpatient commitment statutes, we may witness the reemergence of asylums.
-
Linking Kids with Trauma to Evidence-Based Treatment: Implementation of a Centralized Referral System at the Child Trauma Training Center at the University of Massachusetts Medical School [English and Spanish versions]At a time when the general standard of child welfare and mental health provision has been improving, some important groups in Massachusetts remain under-served. One such is children suffering from trauma. Despite various state-wide efforts to educate professionals about the evidence-based treatments available, trauma sufferers have typically faced long waits to receive these treatments, with average waiting times at some larger mental health agencies stretching to four or even six months. In this brief, we are presenting the implementation of a highly innovative Centralized Referral System – LINK-KID – developed at the Child Trauma Training Center (CTTC) at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. LINK-KID referral system connects children in need of evidence-based trauma treatment with mental health providers who have been trained in these treatments. A Spanish version is available.
