Adolescents with first-episode psychosis and clinical high risk in the Province of Ferrara: an audit on the implementation of a specialised early intervention program.

Objective: The first-episode psychosis (FEP) and clinical high-risk (CHR) team within the child and adolescent mental health (CAMH) service receives referrals by psychiatric units, CAMH service, schools, and general practitioners. This audit evaluated the implementation of the FEP-CHR team in Ferrara, Italy.

Methods: The FEP-CHR team provides standardised assessment and up to 2-year individualised treatment including pharmacological prescription, cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy, and vocational activities.

The Supreme Court's decision in : Does it condone healthcare injustice?

The UK Supreme Court's recent judgement in clarifies the standard for the identification of 'reasonable' alternative medical treatments. The required standard is that of a reasonable doctor: treatments that would be accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion. Accordingly, the assessment of consent involves a two-stage test: first, a 'reasonable doctor' test for identifying alternative treatments; followed by a 'reasonable person in the patient's position' test for identifying the material risks of these reasonable alternative treatments.

Consent for Medical Treatment: What is 'Reasonable'?

The General Medical Council (GMC) instructs doctors to act 'reasonably' in obtaining consent from patients. However, the GMC does not explain what it means to be reasonable: it is left to doctors to figure out the substance of this instruction. The GMC relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board; and it can be assumed that the judges' idea of reasonability is adopted.