This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in BJP
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HUTSCHEMAEKERS, G.
Right arrow Articles by KAASENBROOD, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by HUTSCHEMAEKERS, G.
Right arrow Articles by KAASENBROOD, A.
The British Journal of Psychiatry (2005) 187: 173-179
© 2005 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Roles of psychiatrists and other professionals in mental healthcare

Results of a formal group judgement method among mental health professionals

GIEL HUTSCHEMAEKERS, PhD

Department of Clinical Psychology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, and Gelderse Roos Institute for Professionalisation, Wolfheze

BEA TIEMENS, PhD

Gelderse Roos Institute for Professionalisation, Wolfheze

AD KAASENBROOD, MD

Gelderse Roos, Arnhem, The Netherlands

Correspondence: Professor Giel Hutschemaekers, Gelderse Roos Institute for Professionalisation, Postbus 27, 6870 AA Renkum, The Netherlands. E-mail: g.hutschemaekers{at}degelderseroos.nl

Declaration of interest None.

Background Professional boundaries between psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are difficult to set. Empirical evidence for the distribution of diagnostic and treatment tasks among professionals is lacking.

Aims This study examines the ‘collective sense of the profession’ about the relationship between patient characteristics and the contribution of tasks by disciplines.

Method An adapted RAND appropriateness method was used. Eighty-six professionals judged 77 case descriptions of psychiatric patients on the contribution to diagnostic and treatment tasks of eight selected disciplines.

Results In two multi-level models the variance explained by the judges' characteristics was 3.7% for diagnostic tasks and 4.5% for treatment tasks. The variance explained by the patient characteristics was zero for diagnostic and 0.5% for treatment tasks. The variance explained by the indicated disciplines was 36.8% for diagnostic and 12.6% for treatment tasks.

Conclusions The collective sense of the profession on the contribution of psychiatrists to mental healthcare is unambiguous but not related to patient characteristics. It seems to be based on an a priori ranking order of disciplines.


Related articles in BJP:

Highlights of this issue
KIMBERLIE DEAN
BJP 2005 187: 101-a5. [Full Text]  

PETER TYRER
BJP 2005 187: 202. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. PsychiatryHome page
P. TYRER

The British Journal of Psychiatry, December 1, 2006; 189(6): 576 - 576.
[Full Text] [PDF]