Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T12:11:57.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Involuntary Commitment in the Prehospital Setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

James G. Adams ,
Jody Gerard ,
Vince P. Verdile  and
Paul M. Paris
James G. Adams*
Affiliation:
Captain, USAF, Staff Physician, Department of Emergency Medicine, Wilford Hall, USAF Medical Center, Lackland AFB, Tx.
Jody Gerard
Affiliation:
Attending Physician, Manatee Memorial Hospital, Emergency Care Center, Bradenton, Fla.
Vince P. Verdile
Affiliation:
Director, Emergency Department, Presbyterian University Hospital; Assistant Professor, Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Paul M. Paris
Affiliation:
Medical Director, Pittsburgh Department of Public Safety Chief Medical Officer; Center for Emergency Medicine; Associate Professor and Chief, Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa.
*
Captain, USAF, MC, Wilford Hall, USAF Medical Center, SQ HAE, Lackland AFB, Texas, 78236USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Suicidal patients who refuse prehospital transport pose a difficult problem for emergency medical services. A survey was conducted in an attempt to assess the current strategies for involuntary transport of such patients.

Methods:

The medical directors of 135 of the largest EMS systems in the United States were mailed a questionnaire requesting descriptions of the operating procedures for dealing with suicidal patients who refuse transport.

Results:

Fifty-nine of 130 questionnaires (45%) were returned. Seventeen emergency medical services (EMS) systems (29%) serve populations of less the 250,000, while 41 (69%) serve populations greater than 250,000. Cumulatively, respondents represent an excess of 2.1-million EMS responses per year, of which 0.5%-10.0% involve behavioral emergencies. Eleven of the 59 responding systems (19%) have urritten, explicit policies guiding the management of suicidal patients who refuse to be transported. Involuntary commitment proceedings are initiated in the prehospital setting in 25 of the 59 services (42%). Of these 25, the initiation of commitment proceedings is performed by the following (more than one may apply to a given system): 11 (44%) by base-station physicians, six (24%) by the emergency medical technician (EMT), 23 (92%) by a police officer, and five (20%) by family or friends. Ten of the 59 systems (17%) require a mental health delegate to authorize commitment. Two physicians can mandate involuntary commitment in one of the responding systems. Of the 25 systems that actually perform involuntary commitment in the prehospital setting, seven (28%) have established policies. Of the 34 systems which do not perform involuntary prehospital commitment, four (12%) have policies to guide the care of suicidal patients who refuse care.

Conclusion:

Suicidal patients commonly confront emergency medical services, yet many systems lack explicit policies for dealing with such patients. Widely varied strategies are used to authorize transport of patients who are suicidal and refuse to be transported.

Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 139 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1992

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. Segal, SP, Watson, MA, Goldfinger, SM et al. : Dangerousness and civil commitment in the psychiatric emergency room, III: Disposition as a function of mental disorder and dangerousness indicators. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988;45:759–763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 5150.Google Scholar
3. Van Duizend, R, McGraw, BD, Keilitz, I: An overview of state involuntary commitment statutes. Ment Disability Law Reporter 1984;8:328–355.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Faulkner, LR, Bloom, JD, Stern, TO: Rural civil commitment. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1984;359–371.Google Scholar
5. Lavoie, FW: Consent, involuntary treatment and the use of force in an urban emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21:25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Jayaram, G, Janofsky, JS, Fischer, PJ: The emergency petition process in Maryland. Bull Amer Acad Psyc and the Law 1990;18:373–378.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Miller, RD, Fiddleman, PB: Emergency involuntary commitment: A look at the decision-making process. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1983;34:249–254.Google Scholar
8. Segal, SP, Watson, MA, Goldfinger, SM et al. : Civil commitment in the emergency room, I: The assessment of dangerousness by emergency room clinicians. Arch Gen Psych 1988;45:748–752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Webster, CD, Sepejak, DS, Jensen, FAS et al. : The reliability and validity of dangerous behavior predictions. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1984;12:41–49.Google ScholarPubMed
10. Hoge, SK, Applebaum, PS, Greer, A: An empirical comparison of the Stone and dangerousness criteria for civil commitment. Am J Psychiatry 1989;146:170–175.Google ScholarPubMed