Biomedical subjects

C Tellefsen

Publications and source records attributed to C Tellefsen.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1997

Group dynamics in forensic pretrial decision-making.

This study examines how forensic evaluators' opinions that pertain to diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility (Maryland's version of the not guilty by reason of insanity plea) are rendered at a state forensic hospital for defendants pleading not criminally responsible. Pretrial evaluations completed independently by a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a social worker were presented at a forensic staff conference where psychiatrist and psychologists openly "voted" on diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility. These results were then sent to the court. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinicians' level of agreement and the role that conformity played in the decision-making process. A sample of twenty court-ordered pretrial evaluations of defendants examined at the hospital between March and June 1991, with evaluators' opinions generated by a secret ballot, were compared with a matched control group from an earlier time, when opinions were generated by open ballot. The study was designed to compare the opinions of forensic evaluators in the issues of diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility between the two samples. The defendants in the experimental group and the control group were matched on the basis of age, race, sex, and offense. It was hypothesized that with secret ballot voting there would be a greater disparity of agreement regarding diagnosis, competency to stand trial, and criminal responsibility opinions compared with the open method of voting. However, the results of this study did not support that hypothesis. There was little disparity on forensic opinions rated either by secret or open voting.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1992

Predicting success on conditional release for insanity acquittees: regionalized versus nonregionalized hospital patients.

This research compared the outcomes of two cohorts of insanity acquittees: one group was treated solely in the maximum security state forensic hospital before their release to the community (nonregionalized) and the other group was treated at the state forensic hospital and transferred for further treatment at less secure state regional hospitals (regionalized). This research describes the outcome of a group of insanity acquittees (regionalized patients) never previously studied. The applicability of a prediction model based on earlier research of insanity acquittees was tested on the patients. Findings on four outcome indicators are reported: rearrests within five years after release, overall functioning in the community five years after release, rehospitalizations for mental illness, and successful completion of the terms of the five-year conditional release (nonrevocation). Discriminant analysis was performed on the four outcome variables. The model was found to accurately predict the four types of outcome from 69 percent to 94 percent accurately for the nonregionalized insanity acquittees and from 87.5 percent to 95.8 percent for the regionalized patients. This model is currently being adapted to classify patients into potential high- and low-risk groups at the time of conditional release for the purpose of determining the intensity of outpatient supervision.

Cohort Studies↗

PubMed1991

Administrative issues in the follow-up treatment of insanity acquittees.

This paper discusses issues in the community-based management of forensic patients. Community acceptance and safety demand a careful system of follow-up treatment for insanity acquittees. Many studies have examined the recidivism of this population, but few have dealt with administrative strategies to manage their care as outpatients. In this paper, we discuss our experiences in developing systems for follow-up care of insanity acquittees in the state of Maryland. Central to this work is the balancing of clinical, judicial and community concerns. The decision for outpatient care or movement of the patient to a non-forensic (regional) hospital is a significant turning point in the forensic patient's care. One of the major challenges faced by forensic mental health services is to develop consistency of practice throughout a state. A centralized system is easier to manage, but costly. A system embedded in community mental health centers is less duplicative, but requires major and ongoing educational support. A private practice model is flexible, but administratively challenging. The authors believe Maryland possesses well-developed approaches for the evaluation, treatment and conditional release of insanity acquittees. The state continues to study and redesign its systems toward increased effectiveness and efficiency.

Community Mental Health Services↗