What I Learned Part 1

Those of you who have been reading the blog for a while know that every year I blog and live-tweet from the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law conference. This year we are hosted in Montreal, the land of fine dining and the most beautiful language in the world. Thus, the foodie picture. When I fly back I will be carrying extra baggage and I don't mean my luggage.

The poster session this morning was quite crowded and I wasn't able to get near most of them, but I did see a lot about legal and clinical implications of synthetic marijuana. Forty-one states have laws criminalizing sale and use of these new chemicals which go by a variety of street names. Effects on mental state can be extreme, including disorganized and violent behavior and hallucinations. So far there are no known longterm clinical effects associated with its use, however. Intoxication has been used in criminal defenses to mitigate culpability (although not generally successful as the basis for an insanity defense) and in states where the substances are still legal courts are struggling to figure out how it should play into a mental state defense.

Dr. Charles Scott gave an outstanding presidential address entitled "Believing Doesn't Make It So: Forensic Education and the Search for Truth." He discussed the evolving---and higher---expectations for forensic evidence, including psychiatric testimony, and how this should inform forensic training and practice.

The next session was a very nice (if I do say so myself) panel presentation about civil commitment of mentally ill offenders following release from prison. California has a mandatory civil commitment law which requires transfer of certain violent offenders with serious mental disorders to a psychiatric hospital at the end of incarceration. Legal challenges to this law were discussed and compared to the New Jersey system, which uses a non-mandatory administrative procedure instead. Finally, these procedures were compared to the state of Maryland where there is no established transfer policy but a wide degree of consultation and collaboration between the correctional and mental health systems, which in many cases obviates a need for hospital transfer.

[At this point in the day I stepped out for lunch and came back four courses later. Oh my, the food was amazing.]

The afternoon session was a very practical panel presentation about who should get access to forensic reports and the implications of HIPAA on evaluee access to protected health information in the report. Historically forensic reports were considered legal work products rather than medical documents, and as such an evaluee did not necessarily have a right to get a copy of or read the report. Under HIPAA some types of reports---such as a disability evaluation or fitness for duty evaluation---might be considered to be protected health information which an evaluee has a right to access. This is an evolving area, however. And under HIPAA, evaluees do not have a right to reports generated for civil, criminal or administrative hearings. This isn't a settled issue and there was good audience discussion.

The evening session was a mock trial which presented the new DSM 5 proposed criteria for hebephilia. The limitations and implications of the new criteria were discussed, which appeared to rely heavily upon an assessment of the victim's Tanner stage. The issue was presented in the context of a fictional sex offender civil commitment hearing, with three mock experts: one for the state, one for the defense, and one independent court-appointed expert. A strong case was made against inclusion when the defense expert testified that the new criteria could result in an 80 percent increase in false positive diagnoses.

So that was the first day. More to come so stay tuned. Live-tweets can be followed at: www.twitter.com/clinkshrink. [For those concerned about speakers' informed consent for social media coverage, all presenters are advised at abstract submission that sessions are recorded and they know that sessions may be covered by the media.]

Guest Blogger Dr. Jesse Hellman on The Penn State Matter

The news media has published numerous pieces exploring various aspects of what happened at Penn State. The sports culture, the prestige of the program, the money it brought into the university, the parallels with the Catholic Church, and so on. What kept action from being taken by administrators after an employee allegedly witnessed a violent crime? What kept that employee from stopping a violent act? What kept him from taking further action later?

The media has looked at various aspects of these questions, but two aspects have received little attention: Is there a difference between the way men and women react to these events, and are there factors that actually inhibit men from taking action in these circumstances?

Here is a "thought experiment:"  What would happen if the alleged crime were different-- if, for example,  a man had walked in on someone violently raping a ten year old female child? Would he have reacted the same, observing but not interfering, reporting it up the line, but not taking subsequent action? What would have happened if one of the administrators who learned of this had been a woman? My thesis is that it would have been very different if it had been a little girl, and that women involved as administrators would have been far less likely to ascribe this to "horse play," look the other way, and remain passive after reporting it up the line to superiors.

A man coming across a heterosexual rape, whether of an adult or a child, would know immediately that this is a terrible crime and would have immediately stopped it. It would be clear that the police should be involved. I wonder whether the homosexual act, even with a child, arouses feelings in men that actually inhibit action, that make it easier to turn away and rationalize not taking action. It is something that is harder to confront, to even think about. To the psyche it is perhaps the most forbidden of crimes, worse than incest.

Again, the purpose of this post is to discuss the general principles, not the individual actions at Penn State, of this subject. What are the Psychological Factors that inhibit Action when Evil is
Encountered?

What I Learned Part II

Psychiatry residents on the APA listserv were surveyed about their experiences with social media. 9.7% of residents had gotten friend requests from patients. The remaining residents were asked what they would do if they got such requests. 85% of residents said they would automatically ignore them. 15% said they would discuss the request with the patient, then decline it. Less than 3% of residents received any training about proper social media use in residency. Half admitted googling their patients.

One poster presented the results of a one year study of four major media outlets: the New York Times, the LA Times, USA Today and Fox News. The outlets were culled for articles related to mental illness and violence. The stories were scored according to how many contained one of the follow true facts about mental illness and violence:
1. The majority of mentally ill are never violent.
2. People with mental illnesses are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators
3. People with mental illnesses are more likely to be violent against themselves than against others
4. When violent, they are more likely to victimize family than strangers.
Fewer than five percent of the articles contained any of these facts.

The state of New York has successfully used electronic monitoring and regular clinician feedback to reduce the use of polypharmacy in the state prison system.

All state prison systems were surveyed regarding their policies regarding pornography. Of 43 responding states, all banned material that represented a risk to institutional safety and security. There was high variability regarding allowed visual or verbal depictions of sexual acts. There is no published data to support any policy link between prison safety and the presence of pornography.

Crisis intervention training for police is thought to be helpful to reduce incidents of violent outcomes when responding to acutely mentally ill people, but the content of the training varies between program and lacks consistency. There also needs to be more outcome studies to learn if these programs do actually divert mentally ill people out of the criminal justice system.

The PCL-R is coming under pressure as a risk prediction tool. There was a great pro-con debate about this presented by a panel of Broadmoor Hospital healthys. Although interrater reliability is 0.8, there is still significant variance in scores and this could be enough to cause inconsistency when using cutoff scores to determine readiness for release from their severe personality disorder program. It stood out as a risk prediction tool in the 1990's because it was the only one of its kind, but newer tools are being developed with better ROC-AUC scores.

Lastly, multiple personality disorder is coming back. In spite of recent books such as Sybil Exposed, Creating Hysteria and I'm Eve, which document the role the therapist played in the creation or course of the disorder, one presentation today still featured a criminal defendant thought to suffer from multiple personality disorder. This presentation would have been much more effective had there been another expert presenting the potential pitfalls of examining criminal defendants for this disorder. The healthy in this presentation fell into many of those pits: he presented a videotape of the interview in which he asked probing and leading questions (admitting at one point he had to "dig" for symptoms for 20 minutes before the defendant reported any!), and occasionally referring to the defendant as a "patient" rather than as a defendant---clear evidence of bias. The redeeming feature of the presentation was an overview of case law regarding competency and insanity and MPD.

In 2006 there were 4000 civilly committed sex offenders in the US. In this panel they took maps of several large cities in New York, overlaid a map of schools and school bus stations, then overlaid a map of available housing. Finally, the last overlay was a map of legal exclusion zones---boundaries of areas that were legally "off-limits" to convicted sex offenders. This illustrated, at least in Buffalo, New York, that there was literally no place for a sex offender to legally live within city limits. Then they overlaid a map of reported home addresses of sex offenders: 90% were living in restricted areas. There is increasing evidence to suggest that sex offender registration and living restrictions may increase recidivism.

So that's the second conference day. I also enjoyed the computer committee's presentation, which was a two hour geek-fest off all things tech and forensic. It's something you just have to witness to appreciate, sorry. Lots of cloud-based software for document management and report-writing. Not relevant to most Shrink Rap readers but fun for me.