TY - JOUR
T1 - Defining the tasks of clinical reasoning in forensic psychiatric evaluation
T2 - Psychomedicolegal analysis competency
AU - Raharjanti, Natalia Widiasih
AU - Soemantri, Diantha
AU - Wiguna, Tjhin
AU - Findyartini, Ardi
AU - Purwadianto, Agus
AU - Indriatmi, Wresti
AU - Poerwandari, Elizabeth Kristi
AU - Mahajudin, Marlina S.
AU - Nugrahadi, Nadia Rahmadiani
AU - Roekman, Aisha Emilirosy
AU - Leonardo, Ronald
AU - Ramadianto, Adhitya Sigit
AU - Levania, Monika Kristi
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by PUTI Grant [ NKB- 570/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2020 ].
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/3
Y1 - 2023/3
N2 - Objective: Inconsistency in the quality of forensic psychiatry report has been criticized for several years. Yet, there are limited guidelines to provide minimally satisfactory forensic psychiatry evaluation conducted by psychiatrists. In addition to the impact towards the forensic psychiatry service, this lack of standardized guidelines may impact the relevant competency development and its various teaching methods of forensic psychiatry among general psychiatrists. Therefore, this study aims to identify components of psychomedicolegal analysis competency as a form of clinical reasoning in forensic psychiatry. Methods: A comprehensive literature review and expert panel discussions were conducted simultaneously to formulate an initial list of psychomedicolegal analysis competency. A total of fourteen experts were chosen based on their expertise in different disciplines that have intersections with forensic psychiatry and the general psychiatry curriculum (e.g. general psychiatrist, forensic psychiatrists and psychologist, law practitioner, and medical education director). The expert panel were instructed to score and provide feedbacks on the items of the initial list. Four-point Likert scale were used in order for the experts to express the relevancy of the core competence to forensic psychiatry practice until it reached the consensus. Results: The final 60 items of psychomedicolegal analysis competency were developed after three rounds of Delphi technique and reached a consensus (>70% and medians score of at least 3,25). These competency then categorized into four steps 1) preparing the case (Item 1–11), 2) conducting the evaluation (Item 12–41), 3) writing the report (42–51), and 4) giving expert opinion in court (Item 52–60). Conclusion: We developed 60 items of psychomedicolegal analysis competency that can be used as a standardized guide for psychiatrists to conduct forensic psychiatry evaluation, write the report and provide expert opinion in court. Implementation of this guideline can be used to shape further forensic psychiatry education for general psychiatrist and psychiatry residency.
AB - Objective: Inconsistency in the quality of forensic psychiatry report has been criticized for several years. Yet, there are limited guidelines to provide minimally satisfactory forensic psychiatry evaluation conducted by psychiatrists. In addition to the impact towards the forensic psychiatry service, this lack of standardized guidelines may impact the relevant competency development and its various teaching methods of forensic psychiatry among general psychiatrists. Therefore, this study aims to identify components of psychomedicolegal analysis competency as a form of clinical reasoning in forensic psychiatry. Methods: A comprehensive literature review and expert panel discussions were conducted simultaneously to formulate an initial list of psychomedicolegal analysis competency. A total of fourteen experts were chosen based on their expertise in different disciplines that have intersections with forensic psychiatry and the general psychiatry curriculum (e.g. general psychiatrist, forensic psychiatrists and psychologist, law practitioner, and medical education director). The expert panel were instructed to score and provide feedbacks on the items of the initial list. Four-point Likert scale were used in order for the experts to express the relevancy of the core competence to forensic psychiatry practice until it reached the consensus. Results: The final 60 items of psychomedicolegal analysis competency were developed after three rounds of Delphi technique and reached a consensus (>70% and medians score of at least 3,25). These competency then categorized into four steps 1) preparing the case (Item 1–11), 2) conducting the evaluation (Item 12–41), 3) writing the report (42–51), and 4) giving expert opinion in court (Item 52–60). Conclusion: We developed 60 items of psychomedicolegal analysis competency that can be used as a standardized guide for psychiatrists to conduct forensic psychiatry evaluation, write the report and provide expert opinion in court. Implementation of this guideline can be used to shape further forensic psychiatry education for general psychiatrist and psychiatry residency.
KW - Clinical reasoning
KW - Core competence
KW - Forensic psychiatry evaluation
KW - General psychiatrists
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85149311635&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14077
DO - 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14077
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85149311635
SN - 2405-8440
VL - 9
JO - Heliyon
JF - Heliyon
IS - 3
M1 - e14077
ER -