4.6 Article

A statewide elder mistreatment virtual assessment program: Legal, ethical, and practical issues

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 69, 期 10, 页码 2759-2765

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.17424

关键词

Adult Protective Services; capacity assessment; elder abuse; self-neglect; telecommunication

资金

  1. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
  2. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Telecommunication-assisted forensic assessments by geriatricians are meeting the demand for services in remote areas of Texas, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Collaboration between medical schools' geriatrician faculty and APS agencies could serve as a model for similar programs in other states.
Telecommunication assisted forensic assessments of capacity and mistreatment by geriatricians with expertise in elder abuse and self-neglect are helping to meet the demand for such forensic services for Adult Protective Services (APS) clients in remote and underserved areas of Texas. The use of synchronous audiovisual assisted interviews instead of in-person interviews with clients to provide capacity assessments has become more important with the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is growing interest in establishing similar programs in other states using geriatrician faculty from medical schools to serve the clients of their state Adult Protective Services agencies. The arrangement between APS and the geriatricians at McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas is novel. The structure of the arrangement is important for the success of the program. Legal, ethical, and practical considerations are discussed in this article, including approaches to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, physician liability, state law, and resource limitations. It is hoped that sharing how one such collaboration has addressed these important issues will suggest approaches for the structuring of similar programs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据