Search

In 1976, the Supreme Court of California issued its well‐known Tarasoff Principle. From this principle, other courts found a duty to warn, and some found more than just a duty to warn, a duty to protect. As courts in other states adopted a version of the Tarasoff Principle, they issued a wide variety of third‐party liability rules. In light of the dynamic, everchanging Tarasoff jurisprudence in the United States and recent relevant appellate court opinion in Missouri, a timely updated summary and update of Tarasoff‐related jurisprudence in Missouri is warranted. In the present analysis, we compiled the four appellate court decisions that pertained to the questions of Tarasoff‐like third‐party liability in the State of Missouri: Sherrill v. Wilson (1983), Matt v. Burrell (1995), Bradley v. Ray (1995), and Virgin v. Hopewell (2001). We reviewed all legal measures for clinicians to protect nonpatients in Missouri, not just those that relate to protecting nonpatients from violence as in a Tarasof‐like scenario. Thus, this paper concisely provides a compendium of such options and allows for a meaningful comparison of which legal, protective measures are mandatory and which are permissive, thereby evoking the question of whether measures of protecting nonpatients from a patient's violent acts ought to be mandatory duties or permissive application of professional judgment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs have been implemented widely in medical settings, with little attention focused on how well providers adhere to evidence-based service delivery in everyday practice. The purposes of this paper were to: (1) introduce a flexible, relatively simple methodology, the SBIRT Checklist for Observation in Real-time (SCORe), to assess adherence to evidence-based practice and provide preliminary evidence supporting its criterion validity; and (2) illustrate the feasibility and potential utility of the SCORe by analyzing observations of providers within four large-scale SBIRT programs in the United States. Methods Eighteen potential adherence judges were trained to recognize SBIRT service elements presented in realistic taped portrayals constructed to serve as criterion coding standards. Across the four SBIRT programs, 76 providers were observed performing 388 services in three types of medical settings; emergency departments ( n = 10), hospital out-patient/ambulatory clinics ( n = 16) and hospital in-patient settings ( n = 5). Results Across two exercises, trainees identified 81% of screening and 75% of brief intervention (BI) elements correctly; for the six FRAMES components (Feedback, Responsibility, Advice, Menu of options, Empathy, Self-efficacy), agreement ranged from 69% to 91%. Across programs, 56% of screening, 54% of brief intervention (BI) (81% of FRAMES) and 53% of referral to treatment elements were observed. Programs differed significantly in adherence [screening, P = 0.024; BI, P < 0.001; FRAMES, P < 0.001; referral to treatment (RT), P < 0.001]; medical setting differences were minimal. Conclusions The Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment Checklist for Observation in Real-time provides a flexible method for assessing adherence to evidence-based Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment service protocols. Preliminary evidence supports the criterion validity, feasibility and potential utility of the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment Checklist for Observation in Real-time protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increase in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in the last decade has contributed to growth in the field of applied behavior analysis (ABA). This growth has been spurred by consumer demand for access to this evidence-based treatment for those with an autism spectrum disorder. Presently, there are at least 34 states that have laws or regulations in place that mandate insurance coverage for autism spectrum disorders. There are also 14 states that have passed licensure or a similar regulatory mechanism for identifying competent providers of ABA. The following paper documents the process of insuring consumer advocacy and protection in the states of Missouri and Wisconsin through the passage of legislation that established licensure for practitioners of ABA. The evolution of this process in both of these states will be detailed as well as a number of lessons learned that should prove to be helpful as additional states move toward licensure for practitioners of ABA. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]