MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1097/00124509-200312000-00014

Медицинская библиотека · The journal of ECT · 2003

Knowledge of ECT among staff of a mental health service.

Culas Renu, Port Moira, Ashaye Kunle

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is frequently projected as a controversial treatment to the general public. In England and Wales, user groups have reported an insufficient provision of information on which to base a decision regarding consent to ECT. In view of these findings, a study was carried out to assess the knowledge of ECT among mental health staff in a general hospital setting, as they are frequently the source of information for patients and caregivers. All staff in the mental health unit were invited to complete a semistructured questionnaire that consisted of questions about ECT including their knowledge of the laws about informed consent. Seventy-five staff members, representing about two thirds of the staff population, returned the questionnaires. Seventy of them responded that they knew the indications for ECT, of which the most frequently quoted were depression, mania, and schizophrenia. Only 24 (36.9%) staff members knew of the guidance with respect to informed consent and ECT. The finding in this study led to a revision of the local ECT training program for patients, caregivers, and staff. A review of the impact of the changes made will take place in the future. The Royal College of Psychiatrists itself has decided to implement changes by setting up a commission to assess and accredit various ECT units in England and Wales.

Для цитирования: Culas Renu, Port Moira, Ashaye Kunle. Knowledge of ECT among staff of a mental health service.. The journal of ECT. 2003. DOI: 10.1097/00124509-200312000-00014.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.