CKs mental health (MH) goals are simple:

  1. Peer Review in Mental Health (MH) Services:
    Implement systems of peer review as SOP to existing MH treatments (AI and/or peers)
  2. Clinician Accountability in MH:
    Implementing clinician accountability for mistakes. Aka quality control (no treatment vacuums)
  3. Better Patient Expectations:
    Educating patients on quality treatment & giving patients active voice. Includes prep & constructive feedback SOPs for identifying legit treatment
  4. MH Accessibility; Accepting Insurance:
    Creating profitable business plan blueprints for mental health clinicians to use enabling all providers to accept insurance without loss; minimizing profit margin chasms to prevent mental health industry incentivizing private practice for profits

The end goal even simpler: Make therapy & psychiatry an objective, peer-reviewed, data-driven, patient-centric, evolvable science free of the loose, closed-door, qualitative subjectivity and bias it’s fraught with now; Improving patient experience via treatment transparency.

Ensuring life altering diagnosis get confirmed through statistically significant peer review needs to be SOP. Combined with better (or any) social risk assessment standards.

It’s currently not: one sole professional opinion can leave patients wandering problematic stigmas for life completely unchallenged after subjectively chosen lengths of observation. A vacuum of affirmation forms, all without clear standards.

I find a “do no harm” mentality in clinicians often unchallenged by patient reality, disconnected from causation entirely post referrals.

Critiquing treatment often critiques provider, tied together uselessly by ego. All while clinician mistakes drift unnoticed for lifetimes (by themselves & by patients).

I’ve worked with bad & fantastic providers over 20 yrs. I have never once seen a clinician admit they are bad, bias, or fundamentally mistaken.

They almost always hold themselves in very high regard. Push back enough, and patient sees the door. “You have to want to be here” I’ve been told. Meanwhile, I always do.

It’s against human nature to self evaluate unbiased. Hence treatment at all. And yet it’s exactly this I see in clinicians: patients are expected to be held accountable while clinicians hold themselves accountable alone, if at all.

I often get puzzled looks when asking my clinicians “who checks the validity of our work here?

“I do alone” or “No one” is common. Or just silence befuddled I dare ask. It can quickly grow contentiously personal, as if insulting clinician integrity.

Checking our work is not a clinical threat. It’s just good science. Patient lives are at stake.


Read Also:

Recent Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *