Dealing with sexual boundary violation in mental healthcare institutions by government policies: the case of Flanders, Belgium.
Mental Health Care
Policy
Professional misconduct
Reporting
Sexual boundary violation
Survey
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 04 2022
09 04 2022
Historique:
received:
01
02
2021
accepted:
31
03
2022
entrez:
10
4
2022
pubmed:
11
4
2022
medline:
13
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To prevent sexual boundary violations (SBV) in mental health care institutions overall governments require these institutions to report SBV incidents to a central registry and to develop institutional guidelines how to react. In Europe SBV policies are only recently developed or implemented, as is also the case in Flanders (Belgium). The implementation of a new institutional policy is always a challenge and can encounter resistance, especially when it concerns SBV, because they remain delicate and complex. This study evaluated the extent to which mandatory policies on SBV have been implemented in mental health care institutions in Flanders, and possible factors for (non-)implementation of these policies. An online survey was sent to the executives of all mental health care institutions in Flanders (N = 162). In total 56 executives of mental health care institutions filled out the survey (response rate 35%). Results showed that the implementation of an SBV policy in mental health care institutions is unfortunately inadequate and not all SBV incidents were reported to the central registry. Type of institution and opinions on the SBV policy were related to the (non-)implementation of the requirements. It is recommended that governments regularly communicate with mental health care institutions to better understand the concerns and difficulties concerning implementation of the required SBV policy and to support/stimulate an organisational culture of more openness and safety on this topic.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To prevent sexual boundary violations (SBV) in mental health care institutions overall governments require these institutions to report SBV incidents to a central registry and to develop institutional guidelines how to react. In Europe SBV policies are only recently developed or implemented, as is also the case in Flanders (Belgium). The implementation of a new institutional policy is always a challenge and can encounter resistance, especially when it concerns SBV, because they remain delicate and complex.
METHOD
This study evaluated the extent to which mandatory policies on SBV have been implemented in mental health care institutions in Flanders, and possible factors for (non-)implementation of these policies. An online survey was sent to the executives of all mental health care institutions in Flanders (N = 162).
RESULTS
In total 56 executives of mental health care institutions filled out the survey (response rate 35%). Results showed that the implementation of an SBV policy in mental health care institutions is unfortunately inadequate and not all SBV incidents were reported to the central registry. Type of institution and opinions on the SBV policy were related to the (non-)implementation of the requirements.
CONCLUSIONS
It is recommended that governments regularly communicate with mental health care institutions to better understand the concerns and difficulties concerning implementation of the required SBV policy and to support/stimulate an organisational culture of more openness and safety on this topic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35397564
doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00778-9
pii: 10.1186/s12910-022-00778-9
pmc: PMC8994893
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
40Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 2006;43(2):119-25
pubmed: 16910374
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1995;23(3):433-48
pubmed: 8845533
Am Psychol. 1986 Feb;41(2):147-58
pubmed: 3963610
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2013 Oct;61(5):897-924
pubmed: 23963185
Med J Aust. 2020 Sep;213(5):218-224
pubmed: 33448397
Am J Community Psychol. 2008 Jun;41(3-4):171-81
pubmed: 18302018
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2020 Jun;48(2):166-175
pubmed: 32051200
Prof Psychol Res Pr. 1983 Apr;14(2):185-96
pubmed: 11653552
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2020 Jun;48(2):176-180
pubmed: 32393516
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2001 Spring;49(2):659-73
pubmed: 11508381
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2021 Jun 21;30:e50
pubmed: 34402421
J Clin Psychol. 2014 Feb;70(2):170-81
pubmed: 24375452
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1987 Apr;57(2):287-295
pubmed: 3591913
AMA J Ethics. 2015 May 01;17(5):435-40
pubmed: 25986087
Prof Psychol Res Pr. 1995;26(5):499-506
pubmed: 14621713