his general practitioner to Dr Singh and that he had merely undertaken to Dr Singh that he would obtain a referral to a psychologist from his general practitioner. Dr Champion said that contact with a general practitioner by the treating clinicians was very important in this situation because of the shoulder injury and the resultant loss of capacity to take up desired employment which appeared to be a major factor contributing to the suicide attempt. The general practitioner would have been an invaluable source of information as to Mr prognosis and also the course of Farmer’s his workers compensation claim with WorkCover. Furthermore, the general practitioner would be an essential part of the ongoing psychiatric treatment. It was pointed out to Dr Champion that if a patient is unwilling to disclose a general then that may be the end of the matter. Nevertheless, Dr practitioner’s identity, Champion said that every effort should be made to obtain the identity of the treating general practitioner and to persuade the patient accordingly. He said that the absence of that information placed the treating clinicians at a disadvantage in denying them additional information. Furthermore, that it indicated that the patient had a negative view of his or her contact with the mental health services. Thirdly that it was not possible to establish the capacity to form therapeutic relationships with patient’s people outside the hospital team and, fourthly, that it did not say anything positive about the therapeutic relationship that was occurring at the time of the interview between the patient and the consultant psychiatrist in the hospital, in this case Dr Singh. Importantly, Dr Champion said there was nothing in the casenotes to indicate that Dr Singh had observed the contrast between his interview in which Mr Farmer stated that he had good intentions and was no longer suicidal and the statements to Dr Naso the day before which clearly indicated that he regretted surviving the suicide attempt and had nothing to live for, not even his wife and children. Dr Champion said that in those circumstances he questioned the appropriateness or necessity of Mr Farmer being discharged from hospital on that day. he further said that, at the very least, Mr discharge should have been delayed until Mrs Farmer could be home with Farmer’s him. Dr Champion was of the view that Dr Singh placed undue weight upon Mr Farmer’s anger at being detained. He noted that a to detention in hospital can patient’s attitude change over time and that a patient who is expressing anger and resentment about
his general practitioner to Dr Singh and that he had merely undertaken to Dr Singh that he would obtain a referral to a psychologist from his general practitioner. Dr Champion said that contact with a general practitioner by the treating clinicians was very important in this situation because of the shoulder injury and the resultant loss of capacity to take up desired employment which appeared to be a major factor contributing to the suicide attempt. The general practitioner would have been an invaluable source of information as to Mr Farmer’s prognosis and also the course of his workers compensation claim with WorkCover. Furthermore, the general practitioner would be an essential part of the ongoing psychiatric treatment. It was pointed out to Dr Champion that if a patient is unwilling to disclose a general practitioner’s identity, then that may be the end of the matter. Nevertheless, Dr Champion said that every effort should be made to obtain the identity of the treating general practitioner and to persuade the patient accordingly. He said that the absence of that information placed the treating clinicians at a disadvantage in denying them additional information. Furthermore, that it indicated that the patient had a negative view of his or her contact with the mental health services. Thirdly that it was not possible to establish the patient’s capacity to form therapeutic relationships with people outside the hospital team and, fourthly, that it did not say anything positive about the therapeutic relationship that was occurring at the time of the interview between the patient and the consultant psychiatrist in the hospital, in this case Dr Singh. Importantly, Dr Champion said there was nothing in the casenotes to indicate that Dr Singh had observed the contrast between his interview in which Mr Farmer stated that he had good intentions and was no longer suicidal and the statements to Dr Naso the day before which clearly indicated that he regretted surviving the suicide attempt and had nothing to live for, not even his wife and children. Dr Champion said that in those circumstances he questioned the appropriateness or necessity of Mr Farmer being discharged from hospital on that day. he further said that, at the very least, Mr Farmer’s discharge should have been delayed until Mrs Farmer could be home with him. Dr Champion was of the view that Dr Singh placed undue weight upon Mr Farmer’s anger at being detained. He noted that a patient’s attitude to detention in hospital can change over time and that a patient who is expressing anger and resentment about
FARMER%20John%20Sydney.docx