There has long been a divide between service members and civilian health care providers. According to a Pew study, 77% of veterans say they are not understood by the civilian population, and 71% of civilians say they don’t understand the military.

It is vital to good patient care for civilian health care providers to understand what these patients have experienced during their time in service. Only 36% of veterans are treated at the Veterans Affairs Department, which means millions of family members, as well as troops, are treated by civilian physicians. To start bridging the gap between service members and civilians, the Pentagon is gearing up to promote a new eight-hour course for health care providers to gain a deeper understanding of military culture, titled “Military Culture: Core Competencies for Health Care Providers.”

After a decade of war, the military is breaking new ground during a decade of war, not only helping service members but driving development in the entire psychiatry field.  Before the development of this program the only course available for civilian physicians was a short online course to cover rank, military occupational specialties, histories, and traditions.  Only 20% of the nation’s medical schools teach military culture, and barely half mention the military when teaching about post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.

According to William Brim, a former Air Force psychologist who is now deputy director of the Defense Department’s Center for Deployment Psychology (CDP), this indicates that a much broader outreach is needed. “If a service member were to go in for treatment and their therapist takes an approach of, ‘You poor person, they brainwashed you and took way your individualism,’ that might work for some but a lot of service members would nod their heads, walk out and never be seen again,” Brim said.

Brim strives to change that dynamic. After 4 years of development, the course covers four main subjects; health care provider beliefs and biases, military definitions, language and culture, military functions, and the role of military ethos in health behavior.  The program doesn’t shy away from difficult topics such as sexual assault, physical injuries, traumatic brain injury, and mental health conditions either. The course aims to convey a sense of the warrior ethos, or how service members and veterans view themselves, and how health care providers can use that information to provide the best treatment for the patient.

In its development, the program sought input from veterans, troops, wounded warriors, civilian providers, spouses, and National Guard reserve members, to get their perspective.  The primary goal, if nothing else, is to have health care providers learn to ask a few basic questions that would ultimately improve care for service members, veterans, and their families.

The new course awards those who take it with continuing education credits and will be available through several different websites.  The course was developed in part by the White House’s Joining Forces initiative, so the course will be available on the CDP’s website, the VA’s internal training site, the Pentagon’s website, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the American Psychiatric Association, and others.

Brim’s organization is also developing a one-hour course for primary care providers, the National Guard, service members, and families, to help them get the most out of doctors’ appointments.

These programs are a big step in improving the care veterans and service members receive.  New advancements in the field of psychiatry and providing health care providers with a deeper understanding of military culture promises to bridge the gap between service members and civilian health care providers. This means better, more efficient care for some of our nations most valued community members.

You can read more in the Army Times Article here: http://www.militarytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201405091134/BENEFITS06/305090063

Legal Help for Veterans, PLLC fights for veterans rights. We fight to make sure you get the benefits you deserve from the Department of Veterans Affairs. To learn more or contact a veterans lawyer, visit http://www.legalhelpforveterans.com/ or call 800.693.4800

The highest Court in the country has officially stopped using the term “mentally retarded” to refer to individuals with intellectual disabilities.  This shift in terminology by the Court shows a significant shift in society’s progress toward treating each other with dignity.

Specifically, in the recent decision of Hall v. Florida, the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed the core holding of the 2002 seminal case Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 321 (2002).  Atkins created an Eighth Amendment categorical bar to executing persons with an intellectual disability. The case of Hall, also marked a major milestone in efforts to put an end to use of the term “mental retardation” to categorize persons with intellectual disabilities.

“Mentally retarded” represents the term used in the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (the DSM-IV).  In prior decisions, the United States Supreme Court has indeed used the term.  But in Hall v. Florida, the Court acknowledges for the first time that the term “mentally retarded” is no longer appropriate to use.

The Supreme Court has sent an important message to the entire country on the importance of language and respect in referring to persons with disabilities.   The Court recognized the impact that words can have one on someone. A major motivation for this change came in 2010, when Congress passed “Rosa’s Law,” which substituted “intellectual disability” for “mental retardation” in several federal laws.

In the Opinion of the Court, Justice Kennedy notes, that previous opinions of the Court have employed the term “mental retardation”, and specifically states that the opinion in Hall uses the term “intellectual disability” to describe the identical phenomenon and that the change in terminology should be used going forward. Justice Kennedy also states that the change in the term “mental retardation” to “intellectual disability” is approved and used in the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, one of the basic texts used by psychiatrists and other experts; the manual is often referred to by its initials “DSM,” followed by its edition number, e.g., “DSM–5.” See American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 33 (5th ed. 2013). See also Rosa’s Law, 124 Stat. 2643 (changing entries in the U. S. Code from “mental retardation” to “intellectual disability”); Schalock et. al, The Renaming of Mental Retardation: Understanding the Change to the Term Intellectual Disability, 45 Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities 116 (2007).

The term “mentally retarded” is extremely pejorative and unnecessary to use when there are other words that do not have as stigmatizing an effect on persons with intellectual disabilities. Justice Kennedy writes the Eighth Amendment’s protection of dignity reflects the nation we have been, the nation we are, and the nation we aspire to be.” Similarly, to protect such dignity, word usage should be contemplated with respect to those who suffer from intellectual disabilities. This change in terminology represents a step forward for protecting those who suffer from intellectual disabilities.

Was this article of interest to you? If so, please LIKE our Facebook Page by clicking here.