These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Descriptive study of the releases pronounced by the liberty and detention judge at groupe hospitalier universitaire Paris psychiatrie & neurosciences from November 2017 to October 2018].
    Author: Gousset R, Alamowitch N, Mache C, Gourevitch R.
    Journal: Encephale; 2020 Dec; 46(6):436-442. PubMed ID: 32151447.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: In France, a systematic control of compulsory psychiatric admissions has existed since the enactment of the law of 5 July 2011. In 2015, the judge of freedoms and detention ordered the withdrawal of 8.4 % of the compulsory psychiatric admissions. The aim of the study is to describe the grounds for judiciary withdrawals of compulsory admissions ordered in the groupe hospitalier universitaire paris psychiatrie & neurosciences (GHU-Paris) between November 1, 2017 and October 31, 2018. METHODS: All of the withdrawal decisions adjudged during the mentioned period in the GHU-Paris were analysed following a specific framework. The main analysis deals with the classification of the "administrative", "medical", and "mixed" grounds. The secondary analysis looks at the fundamental facts affecting the judge of freedoms and detention's decision. RESULTS: Of the 127 orders decided by 21 judges of freedoms and detention analysed in this study, the majority were part of the systematic control of compulsory psychiatric admissions (74.8 %) and were made through a referral procedure by the director's hospital (69.3 %). The main reasons for withdrawal decisions were "mixed" (52.9 %), among which were described: failure to respect time limit (20.2 %), failure to inform the patient (11.6 %), third party's proceeding (8.7 %) and lack of documents (8.7 %). "Medical" grounds account for 31.8 % of all grounds. More precisely, failure to respect the required elements for involuntary admissions in psychiatric services was the greatest subcategory (29.5 %). "Other" grounds represented 15.8 %. No "administrative" ground was found. Judges ordered 69.3 % withdrawals within 24 hours to allow community treatment orders to be put into place. In the centre hospitalier Sainte-Anne, 70.8 % of the 24 appeals quashed the first decision by the judge of freedoms and detention. CONCLUSION: Several reasons justify withdrawals of compulsory psychiatric admissions. Scrupulously respecting procedures and drafting psychiatric certificates might decrease the number of withdrawals.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]