Special Risk Management Issues in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Special Risk Management Issues in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Numerous studies have documented the increasing prevalence of mental health and substance abuse issues in youths nationwide. As many as 1 in 5 children and adolescents in the United States have a behavioral or emotional disorder. Multiple factors are associated with the high percentage (up to 70%) of youths with mental health problems who do not receive appropriate mental health services,1 including:
- A national shortage of child psychiatrists and other mental health professionals.
- A shortage of inpatient psychiatric beds.
- Long wait times for outpatient appointments.
- Problems with timely access to individualized and appropriate care.
- Insurance coverage and reimbursement issues.
- Limited access to empirically validated interventions such as specific psychotherapies, alternatives to hospitalization, and out-of-home placement (eg, respite, acute crisis services, day treatment, intensive community-based services, and other diversionary programs).
As a result, many youths are presenting with acute/emergency mental health issues to adult psychiatrists and traditionally "adult" psychiatric treatment settings, such as emergency departments, substance abuse treatment centers, court clinics, and juvenile justice settings.
This article focuses on 4 main issues in child and adolescent psychiatry risk management: confidentiality, suicidality and self-mutilating behaviors in traditional and high-risk populations/settings, homicidality, and prescription of psychotropic medications to juveniles. Additional risk management strategies for psychiatric evaluation/treatment of children and adolescents are summarized in Table 1.
A current debate in child psychiatry concerns the child/adolescent's right to privacy versus the parents' right to know. Teen pregnancy status, substance abuse, and testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases are some of the more controversial issues with regard to whether parents should have access to their children's medical information. Generally, the custodial parents have a legal right to the medical records of their children.
This legal right stems from the ethical tenet that barring an emergency situation, custodial consent is necessary for the evaluation and treatment of a child. However, recent literature supports the view of many clinicians, namely, that doctor-patient confidentiality is essential for minors to be forthcoming with information during evaluation and treatment, and the treatment alliance is significantly impaired when confidentiality is not protected. As a result, it is not uncommon for clinicians in outpatient settings to protect the privacy of their pediatric patients except in emergency situations (eg, suicidal or homicidal ideation, imminent risk of harm to self or others) or under mandated child abuse reporting statutes (suspected physical or sexual abuse or neglect).2
It is often useful to establish parameters of what is confidential versus nonconfidential with the parent and the youth—the expectations and boundaries are delineated and documented for the patient and his or her parent—before the start of treatment. Whether the minor's privacy is legally protected varies by jurisdiction. Although the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 provides protection of privacy for patients, HIPAA regulations specifically exclude minors from the federal standards. However, some states have granted minors privacy and confidentiality. In these states, HIPAA regulations specify that parental access to their children's medical records should follow the state statutes.3
There are often disagreements regarding access to or admissibility of certain records in legal proceedings (eg, divorce, custody and visitation disputes, and litigation regarding emotional or psychic harm and posttraumatic stress disorder) and the potential harm or risks of divulging this information. The inclusion or exclusion in the legal proceedings of confidential material is typically decided by the presiding judge. When questions arise in clinical settings regarding whether to protect or disclose confidential records or health information, consultation with colleagues, administrators, and risk management personnel is often invaluable and, if indicated, additional legal consultation is recommended.2
In a child custody evaluation, it is usually best to have access to all family members and collateral information and records. Cases should be accepted only if the court has appointed the evaluator, or if both parties agree on the evaluator. The child psychiatrist should conduct the evaluation as a neutral, impartial evaluator. The evaluator may also consult one party to review documents or to critique the evaluation of the opposing party or court's expert. If the evaluator has seen only one parent, opinions should not be given on ultimate custody or on the parent not seen.
Suicidality and self-mutilation in traditional settings
An essential component of risk management when working with adolescents in traditional outpatient, inpatient, day treatment programs, or other psychiatric settings is risk of harm to self, which includes suicide attempts and self-mutilating behaviors. Milton and colleagues4 found that a risk assessment had been completed only 38% of the time by physicians with patients who later committed suicide. Accordingly, it is not surprising that suicide is the most frequent impetus for lawsuits against mental health professionals.5 Given that suicide is the third leading cause of death for persons aged 15 to 24 years,6 clinicians who work with adolescents may be particularly vulnerable. An awareness of suicide risk factors allows a practitioner to provide optimal care while mitigating risk.
In assessing suicide risk factors that are specific to juveniles, Juhnke7 adapted the SAD PERSONS scale8 to a child and adolescent population (Table 2). The acronym remains, but the individual letters have some variations to represent factors that are more applicable to this population. Previous suicide attempt ("P") is the most important risk factor because it may be a significant predictor of future suicide attempts,9 especially if the first attempt was within the preceding 3 months.10
|TABLE 2 |
SAD PERSONS scale adapted for suicide risk factor evaluation in youths7
|A||Age (adolescents aged 15 and older are at greater risk than younger children)|
|D||Depression or affective disorder|
|P||Previous suicide attempt|
|E||Ethanol or drug abuse|
|R||Rational thinking loss (psychosis)|
|S||Social supports lacking|
|N||Negligent parenting, significant family stressors, or suicidal modeling by parents or siblings|
|S||School problems (aggressive behaviors or experiencing humiliation)|
1. US Department of Health and Human Services. Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. 1999. Available at: http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/cmhs/surgeongeneral. Accessed May 31, 2007.
2. Romero-Bosch L, Penn JV. Ethical issues of youthful offenders: confidentiality; right to receive and to refuse treatment; seclusion and restraint. In: Kessler CL, Kraus L, eds. The Mental Health Needs of Young Offenders: Forging Paths Towards Reintegration and Rehabilitation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. In press.
3. Tillet J. Adolescents and informed consent: ethical and legal issues. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2005;19:112-121.
4. Milton J, Ferguson B, Mills T. Risk assessment and suicide prevention in primary care. Crisis. 1999;20: 171-177.
5. Gutheil TG. Liability issues and liability prevention in suicide. In: Jacobs DG, ed. The Harvard Medical School Guide to Suicide Assessment and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1999:561-578.
6. Anderson RN, Smith BL. Deaths: leading causes for 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2003;52:1-86.
7. Juhnke GA. The adapted-SAD PERSONS: A suicide assessment scale designed for use with children. Elem School Guidance Couns. 1996;30:252-258.
8. Patterson WM, Dohn HH, Bird J, et al. Evaluation of suicidal patients: the SAD PERSONS scale. Psychosomatics. 1983;24:343-349.
9. Moscicki EK. Identification of suicide risk factors using epidemiologic studies. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1997;20:499-517.
10. Roy A. Suicide. In: Kaplan HI, Sadock BJ, eds. Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry. 8th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998:867-872.
11. Simon RI. The suicide prevention contract: clinical, legal, and risk management issues. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1999;27:445-450.
12. Miller MC, Jacobs DG, Gutheil TG. Talisman or taboo: the controversy of the suicide-prevention contract. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1998;6:78-87.
13. Rudd MD, Mandrusiak M, Joiner TE Jr. The case against no-suicide contracts: the commitment to treatment statement as a practice alternative. J Clin Psychol. 2006;62:243-251.
14. Garvey K, Penn JV. "Contracting for safety" with adolescents: is this an empirically-based practice? Manuscript in preparation; 2007.
15. Gratz KL, Conrad SD, Roemer L. Risk factors for deliberate self-harm among college students. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2002;72:128-140.
16. Muehlenkamp JJ, Gutierrez PM. An investigation of differences between self-injurious behavior and suicide attempts in a sample of adolescents. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2004;34:12-23.<
b>17. Guertin T, Lloyd-Richardson E, Spirito A, et al. Self-mutilative behavior in adolescents who attempt suicide by overdose. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001; 40:1062-1069.
18. Plante LG. Helping adolescents with self-injurious behavior: cutting in developmental context. In: Plante TG, ed. Mental Disorders of the New Millennium: Behavioral Issues. Vol. 1. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group; 2006:189-207.
19. McDonald C. Self-mutilation in adolescents. J Sch Nurs. 2006;22:193-200.
20. Penn JV, Thomas C; Work Group on Quality Issues. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of youth in juvenile detention and correctional facili- ties. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005;44: 1085-1098.
21. Lipsey MW, Derzon JH. Predictors of violent and serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: a synthesis of longitudinal research. In: Loeber R, Farrington DP, eds. Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1998:86-105.
22. Hawkins JD, Herrenkohl TI, Farrington DP, et al. Predictors of youth violence. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. April 2000. Available at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/ 179065.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2007.
23. Resnick M, Ireland M, Borowsky I. Youth violence perpetration: what protects? What predicts? Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. J Adolesc Health. 2004;35:424.e1-424.e10.
24. Cottle CC, Lee RJ, Heilbrun K. The prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles: a meta-analysis. Crim Justice Behav. 2001;28:367-394.
25. Murakami S, Rappaport N, Penn JV. An overview of juveniles and school violence. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2006;29:725-741.
26. Zonfrillo MR, Penn JV, Leonard HL. Pediatric psychotropic polypharmacy. Psychiatry. 2005;8:14-19.
27. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Policy Statement. Prescribing Psychoactive Medications for Children and Adolescents; 2001. Available at: www.aacap.org. Accessed June 1, 2007.
28. Risk Management Issues in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents [pamphlet]. APA-Sponsored Professional Insurance Program: The Behavioral Healthcare Insurance Specialties; revised April 2000.
29. Six things you can do now to help avoid being sued successfully later [pamphlet]. Calif: The Psychiatrists' Program: Professional Risk Management Services, Inc; undated.