Conducting remote medical asylum evaluations in the United States during COVID-19: Clinicians' perspectives on acceptability, challenges and opportunities.
Asylum evaluation
COVID-19
Forensic
Medical-legal
Telehealth
Journal
Journal of forensic and legal medicine
ISSN: 1878-7487
Titre abrégé: J Forensic Leg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101300022
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
09
02
2021
revised:
18
09
2021
accepted:
20
09
2021
pubmed:
5
10
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
4
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, medical evaluations for asylum are being performed predominantly remotely. We sought to describe these evaluations and identify barriers. This study utilized an online survey to assess clinician perspectives and experiences regarding remote asylum evaluations. Clinicians reported positive experiences regarding remote interpretation (85%, 51/60), history taking (82.4%, 61/74), rapport building (81.3%, 61/75), and conducting the psychiatric exam (65.7%, 44/67). Concerns were more frequently reported with performing remote physical examinations (83.3%, 15/18). Although the majority denied challenges with technology (62.5%, 45/72), internet (60.8%, 45/74) or clients having difficulty acquiring technology (58.6%, 41/70) or finding private spaces (54.2%, 39/72), these aspects did represent barriers. Remote evaluations were relatively easy to perform and acceptable to clinicians. This may facilitate easier access for asylum seekers beyond the pandemic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, medical evaluations for asylum are being performed predominantly remotely. We sought to describe these evaluations and identify barriers.
METHODOLOGY
METHODS
This study utilized an online survey to assess clinician perspectives and experiences regarding remote asylum evaluations.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Clinicians reported positive experiences regarding remote interpretation (85%, 51/60), history taking (82.4%, 61/74), rapport building (81.3%, 61/75), and conducting the psychiatric exam (65.7%, 44/67). Concerns were more frequently reported with performing remote physical examinations (83.3%, 15/18). Although the majority denied challenges with technology (62.5%, 45/72), internet (60.8%, 45/74) or clients having difficulty acquiring technology (58.6%, 41/70) or finding private spaces (54.2%, 39/72), these aspects did represent barriers.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Remote evaluations were relatively easy to perform and acceptable to clinicians. This may facilitate easier access for asylum seekers beyond the pandemic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34607249
pii: S1752-928X(21)00140-2
doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2021.102255
pmc: PMC8475638
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
102255Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd and Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. All rights reserved.
Références
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2020 Jul - Aug;71:101595
pubmed: 32768117
J Forensic Leg Med. 2017 Feb;46:24-29
pubmed: 28064088
BMC Psychiatry. 2018 Sep 27;18(1):316
pubmed: 30261845
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Sep;291:113256
pubmed: 32619825
Psychiatry Res. 2019 Dec;282:112612
pubmed: 31630041
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007;35(4):481-9
pubmed: 18086740
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 May 26;21(1):508
pubmed: 34039345
Psychol Inj Law. 2021;14(2):89-103
pubmed: 33758640
Torture. 2019;29(1):36-46
pubmed: 31264814
J Immigr Minor Health. 2008 Feb;10(1):7-15
pubmed: 17492260
Dermatol Pract Concept. 2018 Jul 31;8(3):214-223
pubmed: 30116667
World J Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 22;6(2):269-82
pubmed: 27354970
J Psychiatr Pract. 2004 Sep;10(5):307-13
pubmed: 15361745
Int J Legal Med. 2019 Mar;133(2):669-675
pubmed: 29804275
Isr Med Assoc J. 2014 Mar;16(3):137-41
pubmed: 24761699