HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS British Journal of Psychiatry Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lowe, M. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Lowe, M. R.

In defence of inquiry panels

Basildon Hospital, Nethermayne, Basildon, Essex SS16 5NL

As a colleague who has also protested about the iniquities of inquiries (Lowe, 1996), I am heartened by Mark Salter's latest contribution to the debate (Salter, Psychiatric Bulletin, July 2003, 27, 245-247). A patient of mine was convicted of manslaughter and, although the internal inquiry exonerated the clinical team, an external inquiry serves other purposes very well rehearsed by Salter. It is desirable, however, to expect inquiry panel members (including non-psychiatrists) to accept clear boundaries, realistic terms of reference, to be inducted for the purpose, and to function as openly as possible. Panel members are learning progressively from their predecessors and do not have to accept a process that is irrational. Reports, unique in their individuality, include detailed psychiatric case histories from which clinical lessons can be drawn - though not necessarily fulfilling public expectations. More could be done to disseminate this knowledge officially (King, 2000).

The effects of inquiries are unpredictable but may lead to significant changes. The Clunis Inquiry heralded the introduction of supervised discharge orders (1996). Consultants invited to sit as inquiry panel members should be drawn from the likes of Dr Salter and not held in contempt by their colleagues (Veasey & Cox, 2000) for participating.

From April 2004, responsibility for independent reviews passes to the new Commission for Healthcare, Audit and Inspection (CHAI) and the Government would like to see a national specification for training in complaints investigation (Department of Health, 2003). The College should lobby to ensure that homicide inquiries are included in CHAI's remit. Contributions from past panel members and critics would help in formulating an appropriate training programme for psychiatrists and lay colleagues.

References

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2003) NHS complaints reform - Making things right. London: DoH.

KING, J. R. (2000) Homicide is impossible to predict. Psychiatric Bulletin, 24, 152.[Free Full Text]

SALTER, M. (2000) Serious Incident Inquiries have a role. Psychiatric Bulletin, 24, 196.[Free Full Text]

SALTER, M. (2003) Serious Incident Inquiries: A Survival Kit for Psychiatrists. Psychiatric Bulletin, 27, 245 -247.[Free Full Text]

VEASEY, D. & COX, J. L. (2000) Further comments on inquiry panels. Psychiatric Bulletin, 24, 393 -394.[Free Full Text]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lowe, M. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Lowe, M. R.