Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:32:38.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information sharing and risk: a survey of psychiatrists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

Larkin Feeney  and
Paul Moran
Larkin Feeney*
Affiliation:
Newtownpark Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland
Paul Moran
Affiliation:
Cluain Mhuire Mental Health Services, Newtownpark Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland
*
Correspondence Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Historical information is central to decision making in mental health care. Clinical information in the Irish mental health services is currently mostly paper based. Mental health care in Ireland has moved from an institutional medical model towards a community based multidisciplinary model in recent years. This change has resulted in a dispersal of information between multiple sites and professionals, rendering it less accessible, particularly in emergency settings.

This study sought to find out if psychiatrists working in Ireland were experiencing information problems, their ideas about and attitudes towards electronic solutions to these problems, and their views as to what particular pieces of information are indispensable in emergency mental health assessments.

Method: A questionnaire was designed to answer these questions and sent to a representative sample of 150 psychiatrists working in Ireland.

Results: One hundred and nineteen questionnaires (79.3%) were returned complete. Of the 119 respondents 98(82.4%) stated that they had performed emergency mental health assessments within the past year without access to key information and 79(66.4%) said they would have made different decisions in some cases had they had all the available information. Information deficits were particularly apparent in liaison and forensic psychiatry.

Of the respondents 110(92.4%) stated that they would welcome an electronic database designed to support emergency mental health assessments. Misgivings were expressed regarding forms of consent, data quality, breach of confidentiality, resources and much more. Risk factors (ie. self-harm potential), a high alert message and medication details were the data items thought to be most critical.

Conclusions: A shareable set of essential pieces of information (a minimum data set) would offer a balance between patient safety, confidentiality and shareability. A wider debate about solutions to the information deficits in mental health care in Ireland needs to take place among all stakeholders so that this idea can be moved forward.

Keywords

Mental healthPsychiatryInformation technologyInformation sharingRiskMinimum data set
Type
Original Papers
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 94 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Olfson, M, Gameroff, MJ, Marcus, SC, Greenberg, T, Shaffer, D.Emergency treatment of young people following deliberate self-harm. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2005, 62: 1122–1126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Feeney, L, Ryan, T, Moran, p.Parasuicide assessment in the emergency department. Ir Med J 2005, 98: 111–113.Google Scholar
3.Expert Group on Mental Health Policy. A Vision for Change: Report of the Expert Group on Mental Health Policy. Government Stationary Office: Dublin, 2006.Google Scholar
4.Feldman, A, Ndakengerwa, DL, Nolan, A, Frese, C.Diversity, Civil Society and Social Change in Ireland. Migration & Citizenship Research Initiative. Geary Institute: University College Dublin, 2005. www.ucd.ie/geary/publications/2005/Diversity.pdf (accessed 01/11/06).Google Scholar
5.Department of Health & Children. Health Information – A National Strategy. Government Stationary Office: Dublin, 2004. www.dohc.ie/publications/nhis.html (accessed 01/11/06).Google Scholar
6.Commission on Financial Management and Control Systems in the Health Service. Report of the Commission on Financial Management and Control Systems in the Health Service. The Stationery Office: Dublin, 2003.Google Scholar
7.Prospectus. Audit of Structures and Functions in the Health System. The Stationery Office: Dublin, 2003.Google Scholar
8.Mental Health Commission. Annual Report 2004 (Including the Report of the Inspector of Mental Health Services). Mental Health Commission: Dublin, 2005.Google Scholar
9.Health Research Board. National Psychiatric Inpatient Reporting System (NPIRS). www.hrb.ie/display_content.php?page_id=59 (accessed 01/11/06).Google Scholar
10.Health Research Board. Community Care Records System (COMCAR). www.hrb.ie/display_content.php?page_id=64 (accessed 01/11/06).Google Scholar
11.Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI). Hospital In-Patient Enquiry System (HIPE). www.esri.ie/content.cfm?t=HIPE&mld=6 (accessed 01/11/06).Google Scholar
12.National Suicide Research Foundation (NSRF). National Parasuicide Registry (NPR). www.nsrf.ie/npr.htm#desc (accessed 01/11/06).Google Scholar
13.World Health Organisation. Mental Health Policy and Service Guidance Package: Mental Health Information Systems. World Health Organisation: Geneva, 2005.Google Scholar
14.Hospitaller Order of St John of God. Mental Health Information System Leaflet. St John of God Provincial Administration: Dublin, 2003.Google Scholar
15.Health Service Executive (HSE). Statement regarding iSOFT contract: 23rd August 2006. www.hse.ie/en/NewsEvents/News/Archive/August2006/title,3584,en.html. (accessed 01/11/06).Google Scholar
16.BC Mental Health Information Management System Project (BC MHIMSP): Minimum Data Set Work Group. Final Report. British Columbia, 2000.Google Scholar
17.Comhairie na nOispideal. Consultant Staffing in the Mental Health Services: December 2004. Comhairie na nOispideal: Dublin, 2005.Google Scholar
18.Interim Health Information & Quality Authority (iHIQA). iHIQA News Update. Interim Health Information & Quality Authority: Cork, 2005. www.hiqa.ie/press-room/newsletters.asp (accessed 01/11/06).Google Scholar
19.Mental Health Commission. Information on Mental Health. Mental Health commission News, 1 (3), 1-4. www.mhcirl.ie/publications.htm (accessed 01/11/06).Google Scholar
20.Wilkinson, E.Is the UK health service IT project just too ambitious? Lancet 2006; 368: 1317–1318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Cross, M.GPs' leader sets conditions for electronic care records. BMJ 2006; 332, 206.Google Scholar
22.Watson, N, Halamka, JD. Patients should have to opt out of national electronic care records: FOR. BMJ 2006; 333, 39.Google Scholar
23.Royal College of Psychiatrists. Psychiatrists and Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements: Guidelines on representation, participation, confidentiality and information exchange, www.rcpsych.ac.uk/members/currentissues/publicprotection.aspx#intro (accessed 01/11/06).Google Scholar
24.Lennon, P, Protecting Personal Health Information in Ireland: Law & Practice. Oak Tree Press: Cork, 2006.Google Scholar
25.Kane, RL, Bartlett, J, Potthoff, S.Building an empirically based outcomes system for managed mental health care. Psychiatric Services 1995; 46: 459–461.Google ScholarPubMed