A consultation model for post-doctoral training in forensic psychiatry.

With the continued growth of the sub-specialty of forensic or sociolegal psychiatry, various models for providing theoretical and clinical experience to the trainee have been proposed.H In large part, these models for training have been based upon specific assumptions as to the primary function of the sub-specialty. For example, Pollack,4 who defines forensic psychiatry as "limited to the application of psychiatry to legal issues for legal ends, legal purposes," advocates that the trainee develop specific skills as logician and tactician, as well as clinician, in applying psychiatric knowledge to the service of the law. In contrast, Robey and Bogard5 describe the 'compleat' forensic psychiatrist as requiring proficiency and communication skills in multiple areas of forensic activity: evaluation, training, teaching, and research. Suarez and Huflt> perceive forensic psychiatrists and trainees as needing to develop the strategies for modifying the law so that it will conform more closely to psychiatric expertise. Further, the many 'faces' of forensic psychiatry, as described by Rob itsche r,7 symbolize the present confusion surrounding the lack of an organizing conceptual model for clinical practice or training in the sub-specialty. Finally, various surveys of residency and post-doctoral training programs in law and psychiatry by Sadoff et 01. 8•9 highlight the diverse nature of clinical experience provided, theoretical issues presented and models of training developed. The present paper briefly presents concepts supportive of the adoption of a consultation model for training in forensic (socio-Iegal) psychiatry. This model is predicated on the assumption that multiple recent developments in the sub-specialty are best integrated within an eclectic, general systems orientation to the field a perspective ideally suited to the application of a consultation model both for service and training.