Current and future evidence in personal damage evaluation

George Mendelson, Danuta Mendelson

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (Book)Otherpeer-review

Abstract

The most widely used methods of impairment rating at the present time are the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment issued by the American Medical Association, developed from a series of articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association during the period February 1958 to August 1970. This chapter will discuss concerns related to the evaluation of impairment associated with pain and with ‘mental and behavioral disorders’. However, before doing so the most important concerns related to the basic concepts and terminology used in this field of clinical medicine are discussed, namely the usage and meaning of terms such as “impairment”, “disability” and “handicap”. The chapter on the evaluation of impairment associated with “mental and behavioral disorders” in the 6th edition of the AMA Guides requires the use of three instruments, namely: (1) the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for the rating of symptoms; (2) the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF) from DSM-IV for the rating of ‘psychological, social, and occupational functioning’-it should be noted that the GAF has been “dropped from DSM-5 for among others, its conceptual lack of clarity and questionable psychometrics in routine practice”;-and (3) the mis-named Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, which incorrectly includes “Travel” and ‘Employability’ as ratings of psychiatric impairment. The chapter will provide an overview of the Guide to the Evaluation of Psychiatric Impairment for Clinicians (GEPIC), developed in Victoria, Australia, which in our view is the only currently published instrument that rates psychiatric impairment without allowing the rating to be contaminated by what the WHO would consider as aspects of disability and/or handicap using the definitions set out in the ICIDH.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationP5 Medicine and Justice
Subtitle of host publicationInnovation, Unitariness and Evidence
EditorsSanto Davide Ferrara
Place of PublicationCham, Switzerland
PublisherSpringer
Chapter20
Pages296-329
Number of pages34
ISBN (Electronic)9783319670928
ISBN (Print)9783319670911
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2018

Cite this

Mendelson, G., & Mendelson, D. (2018). Current and future evidence in personal damage evaluation. In S. D. Ferrara (Ed.), P5 Medicine and Justice: Innovation, Unitariness and Evidence (pp. 296-329). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67092-8_20
Mendelson, George ; Mendelson, Danuta. / Current and future evidence in personal damage evaluation. P5 Medicine and Justice: Innovation, Unitariness and Evidence. editor / Santo Davide Ferrara. Cham, Switzerland : Springer, 2018. pp. 296-329
@inbook{57cdb76e15bf47b98170a3cb9fd7aa1e,
title = "Current and future evidence in personal damage evaluation",
abstract = "The most widely used methods of impairment rating at the present time are the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment issued by the American Medical Association, developed from a series of articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association during the period February 1958 to August 1970. This chapter will discuss concerns related to the evaluation of impairment associated with pain and with ‘mental and behavioral disorders’. However, before doing so the most important concerns related to the basic concepts and terminology used in this field of clinical medicine are discussed, namely the usage and meaning of terms such as “impairment”, “disability” and “handicap”. The chapter on the evaluation of impairment associated with “mental and behavioral disorders” in the 6th edition of the AMA Guides requires the use of three instruments, namely: (1) the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for the rating of symptoms; (2) the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF) from DSM-IV for the rating of ‘psychological, social, and occupational functioning’-it should be noted that the GAF has been “dropped from DSM-5 for among others, its conceptual lack of clarity and questionable psychometrics in routine practice”;-and (3) the mis-named Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, which incorrectly includes “Travel” and ‘Employability’ as ratings of psychiatric impairment. The chapter will provide an overview of the Guide to the Evaluation of Psychiatric Impairment for Clinicians (GEPIC), developed in Victoria, Australia, which in our view is the only currently published instrument that rates psychiatric impairment without allowing the rating to be contaminated by what the WHO would consider as aspects of disability and/or handicap using the definitions set out in the ICIDH.",
author = "George Mendelson and Danuta Mendelson",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-67092-8_20",
language = "English",
isbn = "9783319670911",
pages = "296--329",
editor = "Ferrara, {Santo Davide }",
booktitle = "P5 Medicine and Justice",
publisher = "Springer",

}

Mendelson, G & Mendelson, D 2018, Current and future evidence in personal damage evaluation. in SD Ferrara (ed.), P5 Medicine and Justice: Innovation, Unitariness and Evidence. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 296-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67092-8_20

Current and future evidence in personal damage evaluation. / Mendelson, George; Mendelson, Danuta.

P5 Medicine and Justice: Innovation, Unitariness and Evidence. ed. / Santo Davide Ferrara. Cham, Switzerland : Springer, 2018. p. 296-329.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (Book)Otherpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Current and future evidence in personal damage evaluation

AU - Mendelson, George

AU - Mendelson, Danuta

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - The most widely used methods of impairment rating at the present time are the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment issued by the American Medical Association, developed from a series of articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association during the period February 1958 to August 1970. This chapter will discuss concerns related to the evaluation of impairment associated with pain and with ‘mental and behavioral disorders’. However, before doing so the most important concerns related to the basic concepts and terminology used in this field of clinical medicine are discussed, namely the usage and meaning of terms such as “impairment”, “disability” and “handicap”. The chapter on the evaluation of impairment associated with “mental and behavioral disorders” in the 6th edition of the AMA Guides requires the use of three instruments, namely: (1) the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for the rating of symptoms; (2) the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF) from DSM-IV for the rating of ‘psychological, social, and occupational functioning’-it should be noted that the GAF has been “dropped from DSM-5 for among others, its conceptual lack of clarity and questionable psychometrics in routine practice”;-and (3) the mis-named Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, which incorrectly includes “Travel” and ‘Employability’ as ratings of psychiatric impairment. The chapter will provide an overview of the Guide to the Evaluation of Psychiatric Impairment for Clinicians (GEPIC), developed in Victoria, Australia, which in our view is the only currently published instrument that rates psychiatric impairment without allowing the rating to be contaminated by what the WHO would consider as aspects of disability and/or handicap using the definitions set out in the ICIDH.

AB - The most widely used methods of impairment rating at the present time are the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment issued by the American Medical Association, developed from a series of articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association during the period February 1958 to August 1970. This chapter will discuss concerns related to the evaluation of impairment associated with pain and with ‘mental and behavioral disorders’. However, before doing so the most important concerns related to the basic concepts and terminology used in this field of clinical medicine are discussed, namely the usage and meaning of terms such as “impairment”, “disability” and “handicap”. The chapter on the evaluation of impairment associated with “mental and behavioral disorders” in the 6th edition of the AMA Guides requires the use of three instruments, namely: (1) the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for the rating of symptoms; (2) the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF) from DSM-IV for the rating of ‘psychological, social, and occupational functioning’-it should be noted that the GAF has been “dropped from DSM-5 for among others, its conceptual lack of clarity and questionable psychometrics in routine practice”;-and (3) the mis-named Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, which incorrectly includes “Travel” and ‘Employability’ as ratings of psychiatric impairment. The chapter will provide an overview of the Guide to the Evaluation of Psychiatric Impairment for Clinicians (GEPIC), developed in Victoria, Australia, which in our view is the only currently published instrument that rates psychiatric impairment without allowing the rating to be contaminated by what the WHO would consider as aspects of disability and/or handicap using the definitions set out in the ICIDH.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047025345&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-67092-8_20

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-67092-8_20

M3 - Chapter (Book)

SN - 9783319670911

SP - 296

EP - 329

BT - P5 Medicine and Justice

A2 - Ferrara, Santo Davide

PB - Springer

CY - Cham, Switzerland

ER -

Mendelson G, Mendelson D. Current and future evidence in personal damage evaluation. In Ferrara SD, editor, P5 Medicine and Justice: Innovation, Unitariness and Evidence. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 2018. p. 296-329 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67092-8_20