Search

Discusses the use of infixation and interposition in American English. Examples of infixed and interposed forms of words.

The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) has been devoted to the teaching of forensic psychiatry, and as AAPL celebrates its 50th Anniversary, it seems fitting to examine the history and the current status of forensic psychiatry teaching in general psychiatry residencies and forensic psychiatry fellowships. After a brief review of the history of AAPL and forensic psychiatry training, this article explores the current state of graduate medical education (GME) in the United States, the growing popularity of psychiatry as a specialty and forensic psychiatry as a subspecialty, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's requirements for forensic training, and the methods currently used to teach forensic psychiatry to general psychiatry residents. This article also examines the current status of forensic psychiatry fellowship training in the United States. Finally, future challenges to forensic training in both residencies and fellowships will be discussed, as well as the need for AAPL and others in the profession to advocate for increased forensic teaching in a manner that leads to the production of both general and forensic psychiatrists who are competent to practice independently and who are sufficient in number to meet the growing demands for forensic expertise., (© 2020 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.)

Psychiatry residents' experiences in forensic psychiatry vary greatly across the country, and many psychiatry programs meet the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements for a forensic experience through general psychiatry rotations (e.g., on a consult-liaison service) or classroom-based activities. Forensic clinical experiences during psychiatry residency are important for preparing future general psychiatrists for practice with justice-involved patients, generating interest in forensic psychiatry, and easing the transition from "healer to evaluator" for future fellows. Unfortunately, residency programs interested in expanding their forensic training may face many challenges because of current regulatory frameworks, the nature of forensic practice, and competing demands within residency training programs. This article describes these challenges, and the experience of the authors at one institution with developing a novel forensic experience in a criminal justice diversion setting. The authors conclude with some practical considerations for educators interested in developing forensic experiences at their institutions., (© 2018 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.)

The election of President Trump has led to interest in his mental health and has resulted in heightened scrutiny regarding the American Psychiatric Association's Goldwater Rule, with its prohibition on opining psychiatrically on the mental health of public figures whom one has not examined in person. This article highlights the historic, methodological, forensic, and ethics challenges regarding psychiatric approaches to leadership analysis, and how these can offer policy makers options regarding national security decision-making., (© 2018 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.)

After adjudication by the courts that an individual is not criminally responsible for the offense committed, forensic psychiatrists/psychologists are tasked with evaluating an acquittees' ongoing risk of violence. These findings determine whether an acquittee is retained in a forensic hospital or transferred to a civil psychiatric setting or into the community. Better understanding of risk factors that affect decisions to retain or release acquittees from secure forensic facilities would increase clarity in decision-making, assist evaluators in identifying who may be successful outside of secure settings, and potentially assist in the development and implementation of targeted treatments to address risk factors before and after transfer. The current study evaluated which risk factors of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management 20, Version 3 differentiated acquittees whom clinicians opined to have a dangerous mental disorder and required retention from those whom clinicians opined to be ready for transfer to a less secure setting. Results indicated that the Clinical and Risk Management scales predicted opinions regarding readiness for transfer, even after accounting for acts of violence in the hospital. These findings suggest clinicians are attuned to relevant and current risk factors in evaluations, rather than disproportionately focused on historical factors. Implications for practice and future research are discussed., (© 2018 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.)

Most forensic psychiatrists occasionally face complex situations in forensic work in which ethics dilemmas cause discomfort. They want to determine the most ethical action, but the best choice is unclear. Fostering justice is primary in forensic roles, but secondary duties such as traditional biomedical ethics and personal values like helping society, combating racism, and being sensitive to cultural issues can impinge on or even outweigh the presumptive primary duty in extreme cases. Similarly, in treatment the psychiatrists' primary duty is to patients, but that can be outweighed by secondary duties such as protecting children and the elderly or maintaining security. The implications of one's actions matter. In forensic work, if the psychiatrist determines that he should not assist the party who wants to hire him, despite evidence clearly supporting its side, the only ethical option becomes not to accept the case at all, because the evidence does not support the better side. Sometimes it can be ethical to accept cases only for one side. In ethics-related dilemmas, I call the method of prioritizing and balancing all types of conflicting principles, duties, and personal and societal values in a dialectic to resolve conflicts among them dialectical principlism. This approach is designed to help determine the most ethical action. It is aspirational and is not intended to get the psychiatrist into trouble., (© 2015 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.)

Objective: This study examined the association between language access programming and quality of psychiatric care received by persons with limited English proficiency (LEP)., Methods: In 1999, the California Department of Mental Health required county Medicaid agencies to implement a "threshold language access policy" to meet the state's Title VI obligations. This policy required Medi-Cal agencies to provide language access programming, including access to interpreters and translated written material, to speakers of languages other than English if the language was spoken by at least 3,000, or 5%, of the county's Medicaid population. Using a longitudinal study design with a nonequivalent control group, this study examined the quality of care provided to Spanish speakers with LEP and a severe mental illness before and after implementation of mandatory language access programming. Quality was measured by receipt of at least two follow-up medication visits within 90 days or three visits within 180 days of an initial medication visit over a period of 38 quarter-years., Results: On average, only 40% of Spanish-speaking clients received at least three medication follow-up visits within 180 days. In multivariate analyses, language access programming was not associated with receipt of at least two medication follow-up visits within 90 days or at least three visits within 180 days., Conclusions: This study found no evidence that language access programming led to increased rates of follow-up medication visits for clients with LEP.

Objective: Few investigations have examined screening and intervention procedures for comorbid substance use and mental disorders at trauma centers in the United States, although these disorders are endemic among survivors of traumatic injury. In 2006, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) mandated that level I and level II trauma centers screen for alcohol use problems and that level I centers provide brief intervention for those who screen positive. The ACS is expected to recommend best practice policy guidelines for screening for drug use problems and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This study examined screening and intervention procedures for the full spectrum of comorbid mental and substance use disorders at U.S. trauma centers., Methods: Respondents at all level I and level II trauma centers (N=518) in the United States were asked to complete a survey describing screening and intervention procedures for alcohol and drug use problems, suicidality, depression, and PTSD., Results: There were 391 (75%) respondents. Over 80% of trauma centers routinely screened for alcohol and drug use problems. Routine screening and intervention for suicidality, depression, and PTSD were markedly less common; in fact, only 7% of centers reported routine screening for PTSD. Consistent with ACS policy, level I centers were significantly more likely than level II centers to provide alcohol intervention., Conclusions: Alcohol screening and intervention occurred frequently at U.S. trauma centers and appeared to be responsive to ACS mandates. In the future, efforts to orchestrate clinical investigation and policy could enhance screening and intervention procedures for highly prevalent, comorbid mental disorders.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe the epidemiology of consumer product (CP) related eye injuries presenting to US emergency departments (EDs) stratified by age., Methods: The Consumer Product Safety Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (CPSC-NEISS) database was used to derive national, weighted estimates of nonfatal Emergency Department visits for eye injuries by patients' age, gender, diagnosis, injured body part, locale of incidence, and related CP., Results: The CPs causing the highest proportion of injury visits varied among the different age groups: chemicals in the very young (0-4 yr), household items in 5-9 year olds, sports products in 10-24 year olds, cutting and construction tools in 25-64 year olds, and chemicals in the elderly (65+). Patients aged 0-4 also represented the age interval with the highest rate of injury visits (92 visits per 10,000)., Conclusion: This study identified the CPs responsible for the most eye injury visits by age groups. Further research is needed on how to effectively change the behavior of individuals and their environment so that we can minimize preventable eye injuries from consumer products.