mental health records - are medical schools privy to them?

[aspiring20]

after talking to someone, i feel it is appropriate to bring this topic up. it doesnt apply to me personally, but i am sure that some people are wondering about this.

the question is whether medical schools will have access/require you to report your medical/mental health records? i am not talking about court-ordered therapy sessions (which are probably associated with criminal arrests/charges/convictions - and those have to be reported); i am talking about typical medical/health records. say, if you consulted a psychologist regarding an issue or you met with therapists in the past for a variety of problems - are medical schools going to ask those kinds of information?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[music2doc]

No. That would be illegal (a breach of confidentiality). Of course, if you write about it or mention it in an interview, they will know about it regardless.

 

[Lil Mick]

No, but you will be required to open them when you apply for a license. As long as you are stable/in remission, it shouldn't be a problem then, either.

 

[aspiring20]

No, but you will be required to open them when you apply for a license. As long as you are stable/in remission, it shouldn't be a problem then, either.

what if you've never been diagnosed with anything/hospitalized/been prescribed any medication? what if you just met with some counselor/psychologists? will those information be on a medical record?

 

[MedPR]

what if you've never been diagnosed with anything/hospitalized/been prescribed any medication? what if you just met with some counselor/psychologists? will those information be on a medical record?

This may be completely wrong but I assume that anything you bill to health insurance will be on your medical record.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[aspiring20]

This may be completely wrong but I assume that anything you bill to health insurance will be on your medical record.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

i see.

but would medical licensure require a complete medical record disclosure? that seems obsessive and unnecessary

 

[Gut Shot]

i see.

but would medical licensure require a complete medical record disclosure? that seems obsessive and unnecessary

The questions asked depend on the state. Visit http://www.fsmb.org/directory_smb.html and download application forms if you are curious, although a few places have online apps and one or two still use paper (gasp!).

It is important to remember that queries about mental health history are not intended to flag, blacklist, or exclude people who have undergone therapy or treatment for common, transient illnesses. They are intended to identify those who are seriously f-ed up and should not be involved in patient care.

 

[MedPR]

i see.

but would medical licensure require a complete medical record disclosure? that seems obsessive and unnecessary

Why? Don't you want to know that the person you're paying to give you health advice is mentally stable?

 

[aspiring20]

The questions asked depend on the state. Visit http://www.fsmb.org/directory_smb.html and download application forms if you are curious, although a few places have online apps and one or two still use paper (gasp!).

It is important to remember that queries about mental health history are not intended to flag, blacklist, or exclude people who have undergone therapy or treatment for common, transient illnesses. They are intended to identify those who are seriously f-ed up and should not be involved in patient care.

this makes sense. so if a person has never been diagnosed with anything or hospitalized or prescribed anything at any point, then there's nothing to worry about, right?

 

[MedPR]

this makes sense. so if a person has never been diagnosed with anything or hospitalized or prescribed anything at any point, then there's nothing to worry about, right?

Your posts have made me very curious about your particular mental status.

 

[MaenadsDance]

There is, of course, an intermediate between "common, transient mental illness" - which I assume means something like a single episode of depression, or perhaps test anxiety easily controlled with medication and a couple of therapy sessions - and being "seriously f-ed up."

There are physicians, practicing physicians, who have bipolar disorder; who are recovering alcoholics; who have been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons; who are on long-term psychiatric medications; etc.

What licensing bodies want to determine is 1) whether you have any mental health issue that COULD affect your ability to provide patient care and 2) whether your mental health status DOES affect your ability to provide patient care. People with chronic mental illnesses whose illnesses are completely controlled with medication and therapy can still be physicians - provided their illnesses are, in fact, controlled.

Psychiatry is not a dark art or pseudoscience; it is a branch of medicine, and while it provides few cures ( most mental illnesses are like diabetes or heart disease, once you have 'em, you have 'em for life ) it does provide immense relief of symptoms.

 

[aspiring20]

Your posts have made me very curious about your particular mental status.

no need to be haha. i've never been diagnosed with anything, and i've never been prescribed any medication.

 

[aspiring20]

There is, of course, an intermediate between "common, transient mental illness" - which I assume means something like a single episode of depression, or perhaps test anxiety easily controlled with medication and a couple of therapy sessions - and being "seriously f-ed up."

There are physicians, practicing physicians, who have bipolar disorder; who are recovering alcoholics; who have been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons; who are on long-term psychiatric medications; etc.

What licensing bodies want to determine is 1) whether you have any mental health issue that COULD affect your ability to provide patient care and 2) whether your mental health status DOES affect your ability to provide patient care. People with chronic mental illnesses whose illnesses are completely controlled with medication and therapy can still be physicians - provided their illnesses are, in fact, controlled.

Psychiatry is not a dark art or pseudoscience; it is a branch of medicine, and while it provides few cures ( most mental illnesses are like diabetes or heart disease, once you have 'em, you have 'em for life ) it does provide immense relief of symptoms.

right, but i guess my main point is: if i've never been diagnosed with anything and have never been prescribed any forms of medication at any point in my life, will that transfer into a "clean" mental health record?

 

[pre med 2014]

That's really interesting you didn't get diagnosed with anything

 

[pre med 2014]

right, but i guess my main point is: if i've never been diagnosed with anything and have never been prescribed any forms of medication at any point in my life, will that transfer into a "clean" mental health record?

Tell us more, there must be something else otherwise you wouldn't have this concern.

 

[aspiring20]

Tell us more, there must be something else otherwise you wouldn't have this concern.

nothing more. i just had a conversation (via PM) regarding how some schools "force out" their students after they go through a traumatic event such as rape, and that the victim is often over burdened by therapy directions from the administration.

also, i did see several mental health professionals during my undergraduate career to help me deal with the typical issues of disappointment, stress, etc (never anything like substance abuse or disorders). but i was not diagnosed and did not suffer from any "illness". so i am wonder how that'll turn out down the road.

in other words, i had "interactions" with mental health professionals through counseling (as in you talk to a professional for an hour a month about how you're feeling, etc - was quite helpful), but i have zero "documented" mental illness/medication history. and i wonder if i have to tell everyone down the road about those interactions.

 

[r1d1]

how some schools "force out" their students after they go through a traumatic event such as rape

what!!!

 

[MaenadsDance]

You do not. Very simple answer. What on earth is there to report?

Quoting here from the Oregon Medical Board (an example):

The Board supports the de-stigmatization of mental illnesses in licensees. This is exemplified by the questions on the initial application and registration (renewal) forms that ask about current disabilities from mental illness rather than focusing only on the presence of a mental diagnosis and treatment. Specifically, the questions focus on the presence of serious physical or mental illnesses or hospitalizations for either illness (physical or mental) within the past five years which impairs (or impaired) the licensee's ability to practice medicine safely and competently.
If the Board has reasonable cause to believe that any licensee is or may be unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients, the Board may direct and order an investigation. This may include a mental, physical or medical competency examination for the purpose of determining the fitness of the licensee to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients, as outlined by ORS 677.420.

No restrictions are placed upon a licensee if the licensee is not found to be impaired by his or her mental illness.

However, if the mental illness is found to impair the licensee's ability to practice medicine or acupuncture, then the Board may take disciplinary action as outlined by ORS 677.205. This may include license limitation, probation, suspension, revocation or denial of license. All of these Board actions are reportable to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB).

The Board recognizes the adverse consequences of stigmatizing mental illness, including interference with the licensee seeking treatment. The presence of current impairment from a mental illness is investigated rather than focusing on a potential mental disability. As a result, the Board can protect the public and ensure that a licensee who has a mental illness can practice safely, professionally and competently..

Link

 

[MaenadsDance]

what!!!

Amherst was in the news (and Chronicle of Higher Ed) for this lately.

 

[aspiring20]

what!!!

they are isolated cases, but yes, some very prominent universities have been in the news lately for similar behavior...

 

[RCPreMD]

Relax you are completely over thinking this, i would imagine a good amount of physicians have consulted with a therapist once before.

 

[r1d1]

Amherst was in the news (and Chronicle of Higher Ed) for this lately.

this one?
http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2012/10/17/account-sexual-assault-amherst-college
While I'm enraged by Amherst's response in the story, I don't think the girl protected herself well either. At least she should've saved the underwear and called the cop immediately.
IMO how to handle rape should be taught at elementary school. Years ago I ran into a guy molesting a 6-yr old. I chased him down with my swiss army knife although he outran me. Not to blame the victims, but if they were as feisty as me it wouldn't always end up so bad.

 

[MaenadsDance]

this one?
http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2012/10/17/account-sexual-assault-amherst-college
While I'm enraged by Amherst's response in the story, I don't think the girl protected herself well either. At least she should've saved the underwear and called the cop immediately.
IMO how to handle rape should be taught at elementary school. Years ago I ran into a guy molesting a 6-yr old. I chased him down with my swiss army knife although he outran me. Not to blame the victims, but if they were as feisty as me it wouldn't always end up so bad.

There are many reasons why victims of rape and sexual assault do not immediately contact the police. One significant reason is that a victim may fear that he or she will not be believed, or that the police and community will choose to side with the person who attacked them. Another is that victims of sexual assault are often blamed for being victimized, whether it's because they had been drinking, or were dressed in a supposedly provocative way, or because they did not fight noisily enough. Ironically, by talking about how if victims were feistier, they wouldn't get raped, you are helping to perpetuate a culture of underreporting of rape and sexual assault.

I know you don't mean any harm by it, but in fact you have repeated several myths about rape and sexual assault prevention in quick succession, and I do not wish to let those myths go unchallenged.

Last, I would like to leave you (and everyone else) with this: Just World Fallacy

In this case, it applies because so often when talking about rape or sexual assault, people will immediately jump into conversation about what victims did or did not do to bring rape upon themselves, and not into conversation about why rapists choose to rape, or why rapes are so underreported in American society. We do this because we cannot bear to live in a world where bad things happen to ordinary, decent people - and so we must find some way in which these ordinary, decent people deserved to suffer, so that we can continue to believe that if we make all the right choices (are feisty, brandish knives, etc) we will never suffer the same sort of harm.

 

[mehc012]

Everything MaenadsDance just said

THANK YOU.

 

[Gut Shot]

There is, of course, an intermediate between "common, transient mental illness" - which I assume means something like a single episode of depression, or perhaps test anxiety easily controlled with medication and a couple of therapy sessions - and being "seriously f-ed up."

Indeed, it just sounded to me that the OP's mysterious past issues fell firmly in the "common and transient" category based on the vague description provided.

Your points are well said.

 

[touchpause13]

There are many reasons why victims of rape and sexual assault do not immediately contact the police. One significant reason is that a victim may fear that he or she will not be believed, or that the police and community will choose to side with the person who attacked them. Another is that victims of sexual assault are often blamed for being victimized, whether it's because they had been drinking, or were dressed in a supposedly provocative way, or because they did not fight noisily enough. Ironically, by talking about how if victims were feistier, they wouldn't get raped, you are helping to perpetuate a culture of underreporting of rape and sexual assault.

I know you don't mean any harm by it, but in fact you have repeated several myths about rape and sexual assault prevention in quick succession, and I do not wish to let those myths go unchallenged.

Last, I would like to leave you (and everyone else) with this: Just World Fallacy

In this case, it applies because so often when talking about rape or sexual assault, people will immediately jump into conversation about what victims did or did not do to bring rape upon themselves, and not into conversation about why rapists choose to rape, or why rapes are so underreported in American society. We do this because we cannot bear to live in a world where bad things happen to ordinary, decent people - and so we must find some way in which these ordinary, decent people deserved to suffer, so that we can continue to believe that if we make all the right choices (are feisty, brandish knives, etc) we will never suffer the same sort of harm.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

brilliant response as always dear

 

[touchpause13]

this one?
http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2012/10/17/account-sexual-assault-amherst-college
While I'm enraged by Amherst's response in the story, I don't think the girl protected herself well either. At least she should've saved the underwear and called the cop immediately.
IMO how to handle rape should be taught at elementary school. Years ago I ran into a guy molesting a 6-yr old. I chased him down with my swiss army knife although he outran me. Not to blame the victims, but if they were as feisty as me it wouldn't always end up so bad.

not to beat a dead horse but i think NOT TO RAPE should be taught at elementary school. Society as a whole focused on teaching women and girls not to rape, instead of teaching boys and men not to rape.

(which of course does not mean that only men rape women, there are also women who rape-just a much lower percentage, and people also rape people of the same gender-again at a lower frequency)

 

[caianya]

after talking to someone, i feel it is appropriate to bring this topic up. it doesnt apply to me personally, but i am sure that some people are wondering about this.

the question is whether medical schools will have access/require you to report your medical/mental health records? i am not talking about court-ordered therapy sessions (which are probably associated with criminal arrests/charges/convictions - and those have to be reported); i am talking about typical medical/health records. say, if you consulted a psychologist regarding an issue or you met with therapists in the past for a variety of problems - are medical schools going to ask those kinds of information?

IANAL, but as I understand it, yes. States have been required to report patients with involuntary psychiatric commitments or court-ordered counseling to the FBI NICS database for quite some time. Until recently, states have been haphazard about doing this. Obama just signed an executive order streamlining this last week. I heard about someone who was rejected from a teaching position in Korea because her school-ordered 5150 popped up on her FBI background check, so I guess it's not just limited to gun checks.

I think you can get them expunged from the NICS for the purposes of gun ownership, but I'm not 100% sure if that works for the purposes of licensure.

More here: http://smartgunlaws.org/mental-health-reporting-policy-summary/

IME, this is most relevant if you're ever sued for medical malpractice. PIs have always been able to get a frightening amount of run-of-the-mill medical information, even though they aren't always able to admit those records into court proceedings. Attorneys just get subpoenas for them in other ways. I'm not convinced that HIPAA does as good of a job at protecting patient privacy as people think it does.

If state medical boards are anything like state law boards, they'll just put a gun to your head (metaphorically): sure you don't HAVE to give us your medical records. But if you don't, no license. And when we get a PI to do a background check, if we find out you're lying -- and PIs these days are much, much better than they are on TV -- you'll be screwed.

 

[idontcaureuknow]

not to beat a dead horse but i think NOT TO RAPE should be taught at elementary school. Society as a whole focused on teaching women and girls not to rape, instead of teaching boys and men not to rape.

(which of course does not mean that only men rape women, there are also women who rape-just a much lower percentage, and people also rape people of the same gender-again at a lower frequency)

I'm curious what you mean by this. As a guy I was always told "rape is not ok." Never "it's the girl's responsibility to defend herself."

Also, I love MaenadsDance post. It reminds me of some very interesting legal points that show how biased our justice system can be. I think the definition of rape used to (or still does) require the victim fight back, which makes no sense to me. If a 200 lb ripped guy tries to rape my butt, there is likely nothing I could really do. I'm a guy and giving up about 40-50 lbs to someone, that's a lot. I've goofed around with friends and wrestled/fought when I gave up just 30 lbs, it doesn't end well for me if the person has a decent idea how to handle their size advantage and I don't have the element of surprise. My personality dictates I'd likely fight back, but the decision to "just take it and live to fight another day" is perfectly reasonable in my mind. That's for me, now I wonder what if I was a 100-lb chick.......

 

[touchpause13]

Yeah just speaking from my own life I was always taught that its the woman responsibility to prevent rape which is pretty ****ty seeing that my assalant was the same height ha me but weighed about twice as much as me, fighting back just wasn't a realistic option.
As fair as the not teaching boys thing ur lucky to even have gotten that, at my high school only the girls were talked to about rape and sexual assualt (and only our senior year, well past when many of us had actually been assualted) I just don't think boys are taught to respect womens boundaries, maybe you get "don't rape" but do u get a defination of rape is? I know 20 year old men who don't think it can be rape unless the woman literally says no. /facepalm

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

 

[caianya]

I'm curious what you mean by this. As a guy I was always told "rape is not ok." Never "it's the girl's responsibility to defend herself."

Also, I love MaenadsDance post. It reminds me of some very interesting legal points that show how biased our justice system can be. I think the definition of rape used to (or still does) require the victim fight back, which makes no sense to me. If a 200 lb ripped guy tries to rape my butt, there is likely nothing I could really do. I'm a guy and giving up about 40-50 lbs to someone, that's a lot. I've goofed around with friends and wrestled/fought when I gave up just 30 lbs, it doesn't end well for me if the person has a decent idea how to handle their size advantage and I don't have the element of surprise. My personality dictates I'd likely fight back, but the decision to "just take it and live to fight another day" is perfectly reasonable in my mind. That's for me, now I wonder what if I was a 100-lb chick.......

It shouldn't be about "rape is not ok" so much as it is about the difference between "no means no" vs. "yes means yes."

 

[caianya]

Yeah just speaking from my own life I was always taught that its the woman responsibility to prevent rape which is pretty ****ty seeing that my assalant was the same height ha me but weighed about twice as much as me, fighting back just wasn't a realistic option.
As fair as the not teaching boys thing ur lucky to even have gotten that, at my high school only the girls were talked to about rape and sexual assualt (and only our senior year, well past when many of us had actually been assualted) I just don't think boys are taught to respect womens boundaries, maybe you get "don't rape" but do u get a defination of rape is? I know 20 year old men who don't think it can be rape unless the woman literally says no. /facepalm

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

I was taught this too, FWIW. No drinking, wearing certain clothes, etc.

I'm so sorry you had to go through that.

 

[touchpause13]

It's not about "rape is not ok" so much as it is about the difference between "no means no" vs. "yes means yes."

Thank you, that is a much more eloquent way of putting what I was trying to say

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

 

[HughMyron]

If they were visible, I prob wouldn't have been accepted. People in medicine, and med school admissions look down their noses at anyone with mental health issues. It's really a shame.


Also, if a interviewer asks you about any personal issues (in the context of poor grades usually), he's trying to trap you into getting yourself rejected. Don't say anything unless you had a death in the family. I mean, let's say you had an encounter with clinical depression in one semester. If you ever mention it, you won't ever have a career in medicine.

No, but you will be required to open them when you apply for a license. As long as you are stable/in remission, it shouldn't be a problem then, either.

I hate my life.

 

[music2doc]

If they were visible, I prob wouldn't have been accepted. People in medicine, and med school admissions look down their noses at anyone with mental health issues. It's really a shame.


Also, if a interviewer asks you about any personal issues (in the context of poor grades usually), he's trying to trap you into getting yourself rejected. Don't say anything unless you had a death in the family. I mean, let's say you had an encounter with clinical depression in one semester. If you ever mention it, you won't ever have a career in medicine.






I hate my life.

Paranoid much?

Medical students actually have VERY high rates of depression. Of course, if you reveal you have a hx of depression and MH issues, they're probably going to want to ensure you'll be okay for medical school, but it's not an "auto-reject" sort of thing (not that I would recommend mentioning it in an interview -- please don't).

My problem with your statement, however, is that you seem very paranoid about your interviewers trying to "catch you." That's silly and highly unlikely. They are trying to build a great medical school class, not "catch you" in something.

 

[Ashley1989]

this one?
http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2012/10/17/account-sexual-assault-amherst-college
While I'm enraged by Amherst's response in the story, I don't think the girl protected herself well either. At least she should've saved the underwear and called the cop immediately.
IMO how to handle rape should be taught at elementary school. Years ago I ran into a guy molesting a 6-yr old. I chased him down with my swiss army knife although he outran me. Not to blame the victims, but if they were as feisty as me it wouldn't always end up so bad.

You're essentially equating your emotional state when witnessing the molestation to what victims feel when they're being raped by what you said in the last few sentences. You can't say "if they were as feisty as me it wouldn't always end up so bad" because you were the protector in that situation, not the victim and therefore had a different reaction. They're two completely different emotional states and unless you have been raped it is almost impossible to judge how victims should react in that situation.

 

[mehc012]

You're essentially equating your emotional state when witnessing the molestation to what victims feel when they're being raped by what you said in the last few sentences. You can't say "if they were as feisty as me it wouldn't always end up so bad" because you were the protector in that situation, not the victim and therefore had a different reaction. They're two completely different emotional states and unless you have been raped it is almost impossible to judge how victims should react in that situation.

In fact, it is usually that transition in thinking, from
"If I do the right things and react well in a bad situation, I'll be safe"
to
"Holy crap, I'm not actually safe even when I do everything right"
or, sadly
"I wasn't safe, therefore I must have been doing something wrong/this is my fault"
that is the most difficult part of these processes. Losing the confidence that you can protect yourself is terrifying.

So, yeah...I hope you never lose that feistiness, r1d1!

 

[idontcaureuknow]

Yeah just speaking from my own life I was always taught that its the woman responsibility to prevent rape which is pretty ****ty seeing that my assalant was the same height ha me but weighed about twice as much as me, fighting back just wasn't a realistic option.
As fair as the not teaching boys thing ur lucky to even have gotten that, at my high school only the girls were talked to about rape and sexual assualt (and only our senior year, well past when many of us had actually been assualted) I just don't think boys are taught to respect womens boundaries, maybe you get "don't rape" but do u get a defination of rape is? I know 20 year old men who don't think it can be rape unless the woman literally says no. /facepalm

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

I am also sorry you had to go through that. Also, I do not understand how a 20 year old can be so dumb? I mean, I do, but there are many failings in that 20 year old's life beyond schooling.

It shouldn't be about "rape is not ok" so much as it is about the difference between "no means no" vs. "yes means yes."

A large part of the responsibility to teach kids to respect women comes from parenting, not so much the educational system. Yes the educational system has influences, but I believe beyond pushing the idea that "rape is not ok" it's very limited. I think sports have a bigger impact and an adolescent's mind than the main education system (e.g. classes). Coaches have a major influence on boys mainly due to the fact that they are generally looked up to and are in a dominate position.

As for for rape itself, from what I've read in the past (I have a friend in law school who would routinely call me and we'd discuss the legality of rape, so I ended up looking into the motivations), it's not so much about sexual pleasure as it is about dominance. The difference between "no means no" vs "yes means yes" really doesn't matter in the case of dominance. Say no all you want, it results in ensuring that the rapist is doing so from a dominate position.

When I said earlier, my personality dictates I'd likely fight back, it's because I'm not willing to submit to someone else's will without my permission (when dating I feel one has to be both dominate and submissive at different times and trade off, this is important and consensual in a healthy relationship). I will fight and fight and fight because at my core something about me refuses to submit. In the end I value my life less than my ability to fight back. I see nothing wrong with valuing one's life more. Actually, I wish I did, but it's something which is part of who I am at the core . Or maybe it's a guy thing?

I was taught this too, FWIW. No drinking, wearing certain clothes, etc.

I'm so sorry you had to go through that.

This is something where I feel the message get's muddled. It's not the victim's responsibility to protect herself (or himself). Ideally everyone would be kind and watch one and another's back. HOWEVER, simply trying to reduce the odds of getting raped(/into trouble) is a good thing in my opinion. It is known there are bad people out there, so how can you decrease your risk? That's what I think these "rules" are trying to address, but fail to do so in a good way. I think understanding the risks involved with one's actions is important. I don't like nearly getting into fights because a friend got too drunk tailgating and a couple of frat boy's tried to take advantage. Do I blame her for the frat boy's actions? No. Am I tired of having to bail her butt out of bad decisions (black out drunk consistently)? Yes.

I utilized the term dominance many times in this post, because I feel that is the most important controlling factor of rape. For the victim, there are many issues, and problems with it. It's important to realize, rape is far from ok, and the victim is not to be faulted. The sexual aspects are horrible for the victim, but for the rapist the sex is secondary. One cannot always protect herself/himself even when doing all the "right" things. It's a scary world out there.

 

[Ashley1989]

In fact, it is usually that transition in thinking, from
"If I do the right things and react well in a bad situation, I'll be safe"
to
"Holy crap, I'm not actually safe even when I do everything right"
or, sadly
"I wasn't safe, therefore I must have been doing something wrong/this is my fault"
that is the most difficult part of these processes. Losing the confidence that you can protect yourself is terrifying.

So, yeah...I hope you never lose that feistiness, r1d1!

I think what r1d1 did was great and admirable. I'm just saying that to say that "if only the victim would have..." Never really makes anyone feel better. Some women fight, others shut down, some are so terrified they crumble. I think that unless we have been in that position and felt that fear we should never judge how a woman reacts and instead say something more along the lines of "if only this rapist wasn't a sick twisted monster who probably has insecurity as well as power complex issues and feels the need to violate and batter another human being to get off."

 

[aspiring20]

IANAL, but as I understand it, yes. States have been required to report patients with involuntary psychiatric commitments or court-ordered counseling to the FBI NICS database for quite some time. Until recently, states have been haphazard about doing this. Obama just signed an executive order streamlining this last week. I heard about someone who was rejected from a teaching position in Korea because her school-ordered 5150 popped up on her FBI background check, so I guess it's not just limited to gun checks.

I think you can get them expunged from the NICS for the purposes of gun ownership, but I'm not 100% sure if that works for the purposes of licensure.

More here: http://smartgunlaws.org/mental-health-reporting-policy-summary/

IME, this is most relevant if you're ever sued for medical malpractice. PIs have always been able to get a frightening amount of run-of-the-mill medical information, even though they aren't always able to admit those records into court proceedings because they were obtained quasi-legally. Attorneys can sometimes go about getting them admitted into evidence in other ways. I'm not convinced that HIPAA does as good of a job at protecting patient privacy as people think it does.

If state medical boards are anything like state law boards, they'll just put a gun to your head (metaphorically): sure you don't HAVE to give us your medical records. But if you don't, no license. And when we get a PI to do a background check, if we find out you're lying -- and PIs these days are much, much better than they are on TV -- you'll be screwed.

but what kinds of information makes it to those state/fbi records? a typical meeting with a psychologist means that psychologist MUST report the patient to a FBI datebase? this seems absurd.

so seeing mental health professionals can possibly mean the end of a medical career?

 

[MaenadsDance]

but what kinds of information makes it to those state/fbi records? a typical meeting with a psychologist means that psychologist MUST report the patient to a FBI datebase? this seems absurd.

so seeing mental health professionals can possibly mean the end of a medical career?

The key word is involuntary psychiatric commitment - if you haven't been remanded to a locked ward by a judge, your career is not over.

 

[aspiring20]

The key word is involuntary psychiatric commitment - if you haven't been remanded to a locked ward by a judge, your career is not over.

does that mean court-ordered stuff? i am aware of that.

 

[MaenadsDance]

It's complicated. I am neither a psychiatrist or a lawyer, so I may screw this up, but as I understand it, a psychiatrist can place a 72-hour hold on a patient to keep them in a locked unit if the psychiatrist has reason to believe the patient is a danger to themselves or to others. At the end of that 72-hour period, if the patient wishes to leave and the psychiatrist wants them to stay, there will be a hearing before a judge who will decide whether or not the patient should be involuntarily committed for their own good/the good of society. Different states have differing laws; in California, the 72 hour hold can be extended as long as a week, or even two weeks, without a court order.

I assume, but do not know, that court-ordered counseling, psychiatric visits, or substance abuse treatment would show up on a background check; I do not know (but suspect) that they would be grounds for denying a medical license.

 

[Ashley1989]

It's complicated. I am neither a psychiatrist or a lawyer, so I may screw this up, but as I understand it, a psychiatrist can place a 72-hour hold on a patient to keep them in a locked unit if the psychiatrist has reason to believe the patient is a danger to themselves or to others. At the end of that 72-hour period, if the patient wishes to leave and the psychiatrist wants them to stay, there will be a hearing before a judge who will decide whether or not the patient should be involuntarily committed for their own good/the good of society. Different states have differing laws; in California, the 72 hour hold can be extended as long as a week, or even two weeks, without a court order.

I assume, but do not know, that court-ordered counseling, psychiatric visits, or substance abuse treatment would show up on a background check; I do not know (but suspect) that they would be grounds for denying a medical license.

Even psychiatric visits though? I would think that would just discourage a person in need of professional help from seeking it. I think our society puts this stigma on seeing a psychiatrist when in reality it takes a smart person to recognize that they need help and going to get it before the problem gets out of hand.

 

[aspiring20]

It's complicated. I am neither a psychiatrist or a lawyer, so I may screw this up, but as I understand it, a psychiatrist can place a 72-hour hold on a patient to keep them in a locked unit if the psychiatrist has reason to believe the patient is a danger to themselves or to others. At the end of that 72-hour period, if the patient wishes to leave and the psychiatrist wants them to stay, there will be a hearing before a judge who will decide whether or not the patient should be involuntarily committed for their own good/the good of society. Different states have differing laws; in California, the 72 hour hold can be extended as long as a week, or even two weeks, without a court order.

I assume, but do not know, that court-ordered counseling, psychiatric visits, or substance abuse treatment would show up on a background check; I do not know (but suspect) that they would be grounds for denying a medical license.

this is all good information. what if, say hypothetically, someone sees a psychiatrist/psychotherapist to deal with life problems like marriage issues, general stress, or just whatever reason? will those visits be made public? that seems against the very definition of confidentiality.

 

[sector9]

this is all good information. what if, say hypothetically, someone sees a psychiatrist/psychotherapist to deal with life problems like marriage issues, general stress, or just whatever reason? will those visits be made public? that seems against the very definition of confidentiality.

You need to go way back to the beginning and re-read Lil Mick and Gut Shot's responses. That's about the best you're going to get. Yes, some states will require you to disclose any visit to a psychologist/psychiatrist/counselor. If you're honest and upfront about it, and assuming that there isn't a serious problem, then it will lead to absolutely 0 repercussions as far as obtaining your license. If you decide to lie on your state board licensure application about anything, then that can be a serious deal later on if they ever find out.

Those records aren't public. They're still private. But you do have to disclose it on the application

 

[caianya]

If they were visible, I prob wouldn't have been accepted. People in medicine, and med school admissions look down their noses at anyone with mental health issues. It's really a shame.


Also, if a interviewer asks you about any personal issues (in the context of poor grades usually), he's trying to trap you into getting yourself rejected. Don't say anything unless you had a death in the family. I mean, let's say you had an encounter with clinical depression in one semester. If you ever mention it, you won't ever have a career in medicine.

AFAIK, they only run background checks on you once you apply for your license. From what I understand, it wouldn't have come up for your admission to med school.

The extent of the check varies by state, as does the nature of the mental health illnesses they're willing to let get licensed with. However, these questions are becoming increasingly restrictive. http://www.jaapl.org/content/36/3/369.short

So yeah. When people say it's best to play it safe and not get treatment so it'll be easier to get licensed down the road? They're really not kidding.

 

[HughMyron]

AFAIK, they only run background checks on you once you apply for your license. From what I understand, it wouldn't have come up for your admission to med school.

The extent of the check varies by state, as does the nature of the mental health illnesses they're willing to let get licensed with. However, these questions are becoming increasingly restrictive. http://www.jaapl.org/content/36/3/369.short

Moreover, many states require you to (a) continue expensive and time-consuming counseling even if you and your therapist no longer feel it's necessary, and (b) require you to turn over all records to them. It's also important to remember that you can't be entirely sure what they see. Why? Because in many states, psych records are the one medical record you don't have the right to access, and many psychologists and psychiatrists still do not tell their patients their complete diagnosis.

So yeah. When people say it's best to play it safe and not get treatment so it'll be easier to get licensed down the road? They're really not kidding.

Sigh. I don't have mental health issues anymore, but this was quite worrisome to read. The university I transferred to did not provide counseling services, so I just tried to ignore it for the last 3 years.

At least as a physician, I'll hopefully be able to write myself prescriptions for fluoxetine and alprazolam and all the rest of the good stuff.

 

[caianya]

You need to go way back to the beginning and re-read Lil Mick and Gut Shot's responses. That's about the best you're going to get. Yes, some states will require you to disclose any visit to a psychologist/psychiatrist/counselor. If you're honest and upfront about it, and assuming that there isn't a serious problem, then it will lead to absolutely 0 repercussions as far as obtaining your license. If you decide to lie on your state board licensure application about anything, then that can be a serious deal later on if they ever find out.

Those records aren't public. They're still private. But you do have to disclose it on the application

That's the way things were around 1998. That's not exactly how things are these days. http://www.jaapl.org/content/36/3/369.short

The state bar examiners got my step-sister's records just fine. If they did, I'm sure the same thing happens every day with the medical examiners since bar examiners have always modeled themselves on medical examiners. You probably give them permission in the fine print without realizing it.

 

[caianya]

Sigh. I don't have mental health issues anymore, but this was quite worrisome to read. The university I transferred to did not provide counseling services, so I just tried to ignore it for the last 3 years.

At least as a physician, I'll hopefully be able to write myself prescriptions for fluoxetine and alprazolam and all the rest of the good stuff.

Actually, that's probably a good thing. Unis with counseling services seem to pressure -- if not coerce -- students with mental illnesses out of school entirely because they're liability risks. Instead of helping students, they just traumatize them more.