In the second case, reasonable care encompasses a discharge plan and continuity of care. Discharge plans should include safety precautions and treatment. Follow-up after discharge ensures that the treatment plan has been carried out. Educate family members about monitoring the patient, communicating observations about changes or concerns, and safeguarding the home, such as removing firearms (Box 2).13
- Emphasize the need for follow-up therapy and/or medication adherence
- Inform the patient and family of crisis management procedures and steps. Patient needs to know how to the contact treatment provider and what to do when the clinician is not immediately accessible in an emergency
- Obtain the patient’s permission for you to talk with family members as is clinically necessary
- Instruct the family to monitor the patient and communicate changes or concerns to the outpatient providers
- Enlist the family to help safeguard the home, for example, removing firearms
- Evaluate the patient’s understanding and acceptance of the aftercare plan.
Family members should be aware of any problems in the patient’s understanding or acceptance of the plan.
Source: Reference 9
- information sources (such as patient report, family report) the psychiatrist used when deciding to discharge the patient
- factors that went into the decision to discharge (such as response to medications)
- how these factors were balanced against the option of keeping the patient in the hospital.
Comparative negligence. In some suicide cases, courts have allowed a comparative negligence defense, either against the family or the patient. In Maunz vs Perales, the psychiatrist instructed the patient’s family to remove all guns from the home, referred the patient to an outpatient clinic, advised the family to make an appointment 1 week later, and then discharged the patient. The next day, the patient bought a gun and shot himself.
The court held that “people generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care for their own safety. To rule otherwise would make the doctor the absolute insurer of any patient exhibiting suicidal tendencies. The consequence of such a ruling would be that no health care provider would want to risk the liability exposure in treating such a patient, and, thus, suicidal persons would be denied necessary treatment.”5,15