Should OT's discuss assessment results with patients in acute mental health?

Assessing patients is part of the rubric of everyday life for most occupational therapists (OT’s). OT’s are trained to gather information from multiple sources and formulate complete, competent and accurate appraisals of the patient’s occupational status, often in the face of time restraints and limited quality contact with the individual. The result of this process is a valuable document reflecting the OT’s unique perspective on the patient’s level of functioning and arguably the closest representation of the patient’s own preferences for treatment. The lifespan of this document, however, does not necessarily end after it has been completed and filed away. Exploration of its uses should justify the rigors of its acquisition. A large and immovable aspect of this exploration is to what extent assessment results can be shared with the subjects themselves.

OT’s legal obligation

The law states that we, as OT’s, have a legal obligation to share assessment results with all patients, regardless of the setting. The Access to Health Records Act (Department of Health (DoH), 1990) was the first Bill to specifically address the responsibility of occupational therapists to disclose any information; ”˜relating to the physical or mental health of an individual who can be identified from that information, or from that and other information in the possession of the holder of the record’ (section 2.1 (f) DoH, 1990). Since this benchmark legislation both the Data Protection Act 1998, European Union Data Directive (1998) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) (2000) have refined and reinforced this policy. Significantly for health-care professionals the FOI was designed to promote and highlight patients rights to publicly held information, after the Audit Commission in 1995 found that many health professionals were reticent in permitting patients free access to their records. In light of this legislation, omitting results of a MOHOST assessment, for example, is of equal offence to omitting medical records (section 2.1 (f) DoH, 1990).

The Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct for Occupational Therapy (COT 2005) echoes government directives for information access by stating ”˜access to records shall be granted in accordance with current statutory requirements’ (2.3.5, COT, 2005). The Code also refers to a clause in the Data Protection Act (1998) that exempts information that is ”˜likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another’ (Data Protection Act 1998 section 10A). The closest statement within the code of ethics relating specifically to the process of assessment feedback itself is that ”˜reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the client understands”¦the proposed intervention(s) (2.1.4, COT, 2005).

The Evidence”

Over the last three decades piecemeal research on this subject has been produced, often contrasting psychiatric notes with medical notes to gain insights. A study by Critchon, Douzenis, Leggatt and Hughes (1992), titled ”˜Are psychiatric case notes offensive’, found that acute in-patients found the formulation “chronic schizophrenic” to be offensive but not the formulation “chronic diabetic”, in those patients with a duel diagnosis. Other studies have attempted to measure anxiety levels in patients who were exposed to candid reports about themselves in clinical records, revealing contrasts between physical and psychiatric patients. In one randomized trial, 11% of medical outpatients reported they had “upsetting feelings” as a result of reading their records (Golodetz, Ruess, Milhous, 1976). In a non-randomised controlled trial, 23% of obstetic patients reported that records were “worrying” (Elbourne, Richardson, Chalmers, Waterhouse, Holt, 1987). In three separate studies of psychiatric patients’ anxiety levels, using varied research methods, however, results range from 12% to 50% of patients reporting discontent after reading their clinical reports (Beradt, Gunning, Quenstedt, 1991; Miller, Morrow, Kaye, Maier, 1987; Stein, Furedy, Simonton, Neuffer, 1979).

Within OT itself very little has been written about the way patients interface with assessment results. Kielhofner (2005) admits that although it is common-place to discuss assessment results with patients in both mental and physical health within the MOHO tradition, there is no explicit guidance for practitioners in this area or adequate evidence-base (personal correspondence, 2005). The few examples that exist show the positive effect of sharing feedback between patient and OT, and the scope for creativity in this field.

In a case study by Auzmendia, Gloria de las Heras, Kielhofner and Miranda (2002) the results of a Volitional Questionnaire, an observational assessment ascertaining the level of volition of the individual, were shared with a community outpatient who has a bipolar disorder. At first the OT refrained from sharing the assessment results and instead used it to learn more about the individual. As the goal setting process became more concrete the OT began sharing the results with him and eventually taught him to use the measure himself as a self-assessment.

Kirsty Forsyth, author of the MOHOST, sounds a cautionary note on whether or not a there should be a blanket feeding back of assessment results to patients by stating that sharing is not always appropriate and needs to be flexible (personal correspondence, 2005). A good example of this flexibility is illustrated by Kielhofner, Brenneman Baron, Mentrup, Schulte and Shepard (2002) who describe how an Assessment of Communication and Interaction Skills (ACIS), another observational assessment, was used to help an acute patient with depression self analyze whilst watching a videotape of his social interaction. This empowered the patient to be the main definer of his problems rather than have them defined for him by a health-care professional. An important footnote in this example is that the client had volunteered to be assessed by this method, so would have been more conducive to such a candid process.

If communicated effectively, therefore, the feeding back of assessment results can provide a foundation to mutual and therapeutic goal setting. If communicated bluntly, on the other hand, it can serve to offend the patient (Starke, Andrews, Griffin, Rebeiro, 2001). It is essential for more evidence-based research in the field to be generated because of the unique nature of the OT assessment and partnership between OT and patient. For this reason conclusions from other professions cannot be borrowed. More needs to be learnt about what factors influence the feedback process and how patients and practitioners feel about it. Acute mental health is the ideal platform on which to stimulate debate on this subject.

References

Bernadt, M., Gunning, L., Quenstedt, M. (1991) Patients’ access to their own psychiatric records. British Medical Journal, 303: 967

Department for Constitutional Affairs (2000) Freedom of Information Act. London. HMSO.

Department of Health (1990) Access to Health Records Act in Mental Health. London. HMSO.

Elbourne, D., Richardson, M., Chalmers, I,. Waterhouse, I., Holt, E. (1987) The Newbury Maternity Care Study: a randomized controlled trial to assess a policy of women holding their own obstetric records. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology; 94: 612—619

Crichton, P., Douzenis, A., Leggatt, C., Hughes, T., Lewis, S. (1992) Are psychiatric case-notes offensive? Psychiatric Bulletin Review. Nov; 16(11): 675-7

Forsyth, K. (2005) Personal correspondence via e-mail (29/08/2005)

Golodetz, A., Ruess, J., Milhous, R. L. (1976) The right to know: giving the patient his medical record. Archive of Physical Medical Rehabilitation; 57: 78—81

Kielhofner, G., Brenneman, B., Baron, K., Mentrup, C., Schulte, D., Sheppard, J. (2002) Enabling clients to reconstruct their occupational lives in long-term rehabilitation in Kielhofner, G. (2002) Model Of Human Occupation (3rd Edition), Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins

Kielhofner, G. (2005) Personal correspondence via e-mail (28/08/2005 and 31/08/2005)

Miller, R. D., Morrow, B., Kaye, M., Maier, G. J. (1987) Patient access to medical records in a forensic center: A controlled study. Hospital and Community Psychiatry; 38:1081—1085

Stein, E. J., Furedy, R. L., Simonton, M. J., Neuffer, C. H. (1979) Patient access to medical records on a psychiatric inpatient unit. American Journal of Psychiatry; 136: 327—329

Starke, L. Andrews, P., Griffin, C., Rebeiro, K. (2001) Being on the other side: OT’s who have been recipients of OT. OT Now. May/June 2001 p25-27