AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Evaluation of Psychiatric Disability.

Statement of Intent and Development Process This document is intended to be a review of legal and psychiatric factors and to give practical guidance and assistance in the performance of psychiatric disability evaluations. It was developed by forensic psychiatrists who routinely conduct disability evaluations and have expertise in this area. Some contributors are actively involved in related academic endeavors. The process of developing the Practice Guideline incorporated opportunities for review by members and integration of feedback and revisions into the final draft. The final draft of the Guideline was approved by the Council of the American Academy of Psychiatry and The Law in March, 2008. The contents thus reflect a consensus of opinion among members and experts about the principles and practice applicable to the conduct of psychiatric disability evaluations. As with any Practice Guideline, this one is not binding, nor should it be construed as setting a standard of care. The Guideline does not present all acceptable current ways of performing forensic evaluations of persons with psychiatric disability, and following it does not lead to a guaranteed outcome. Fact patterns, clinical factors, relevant statutes, administrative and case law, and the forensic psychiatrist’s judgment determine how to proceed in a forensic evaluation. Although treating clinicians may find this Guideline useful, it is directed toward psychiatrists and other clinicians who work in a forensic role in conducting evaluations and providing opinions related to psychiatric disability. It is expected that any clinician who agrees to perform forensic evaluations in this domain has the appropriate qualifications. Efforts were made to minimize the potential for bias among the authors due to conflicts of interest. Participating psychiatrists were selected on the basis of their expertise and recognition of their work by their peers. Any participating author or reviewer who had a potential conflict of interest that could bias (or appear to bias) his or her work was asked to disclose the conflict and to resolve it as a prerequisite for acceptance of commentary or participation. The development of this Practice Guideline was not financially supported by any commercial organization.