The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a public health emergency with profound mental health consequences. The psychiatric emergency department (ED) plays a key role during this mental health crisis. This study aimed to investigate differences in admissions at a Swiss psychiatric ED from 1 April to 15 May during a “pandemic-free” period in 2016 and a “during-pandemic” period in 2020. The study included 579 consultations at psychiatric ED in the “during-pandemic” period and 702 in the “pandemic-free” period. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were compared, and logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with psychiatric admissions during the pandemic. A reduction in total psychiatric ED admissions was documented during COVID-19. Logistic regression analysis predicted the independent variable (ED admission during the pandemic) and estimated odds ratio (OR) for being unmarried/not in a relationship, arrival in an ambulance, suicidal behavior, behavioral disorders and psychomotor agitation. Though only statistically significant in bivariate analysis, patients were also more likely to be involuntarily hospitalized. This picture appears to be reversed from a sociodemographic and clinical point of view to our observation of psychiatric ED consultation in 2016. These findings highlight that the reduction in psychiatric ED admissions during the pandemic seems to be associated with living alone and more severe psychopathologies, which must alert psychiatrists to ensure access to mental health care in times of pandemic.

Background The ‘lockdown’ measures, adopted to restrict population movements in order to help curb the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, contributed to a global mental health crisis. Although several studies have extensively examined the impact of lockdown measures on the psychological well-being of the general population, little is known about long-term implications. This study aimed to identify changes in psychiatric emergency department (ED) admissions between two 8-week periods: during and immediately after lifting the lockdown. Methods Socio-demographic and clinical information on 1477 psychiatric ED consultations at the University Hospital of Geneva (HUG) were retrospectively analyzed. Results When grouped according to admission dates, contrary to what we expected, the post-lockdown group presented with more severe clinical conditions (as measured using an urgency degree index) compared to their lockdown counterparts. Notably, after the lockdown had been lifted we observed a statistically significant increase in suicidal behavior and psychomotor agitation and a decrease in behavior disorder diagnoses. Furthermore, more migrants arrived at the HUG ED after the lockdown measures had been lifted. Logistic regression analysis identified diagnoses of suicidal behavior, behavioral disorders, psychomotor agitation, migrant status, involuntary admission, and private resident discharge as predictors of post-lockdown admissions. Conclusions Collectively, these findings can have implications concerning the prioritization of mental health care facilities and access for patients at risk of psychopathological decompensation in time of confinement policies, but above all, provide a foundation for future studies focusing on the long-term impact of the pandemic and its associated sanitary measures on mental health. Trial registration Research Ethics Committee of Geneva, Registration number 2020–01510, approval date: 29 June 2020.

Background and Objectives: While the impact on mental health of 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) has been extensively documented, little is known about its influence on subjective fears. Here, we investigate the COVID-19 impact and its related restrictions on fears of patients admitted to a psychiatric Emergency Department (ED) during and post-lockdown. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study on 1477 consultations at the psychiatric ED of the University Hospital of Geneva (HUG) was performed using a mixed-methods analysis. The first analysis section was qualitative, aiming to explore the type of fears, while the second section statistically compared fears (i) during lockdown (16 March 2020–10 May 2020) and (ii) post-lockdown (11 May 2020–5 July 2020). Fears were also explored among different patient-age sub-groups. Results: 334 patients expressed one/more fears. Both in lockdown and post-lockdown, fears mostly pertained to “containment measures” (isolation, loneliness). When compared lockdown vs. post-lockdown, fears about “work status” (deteriorating, losing work) prevailed in lockdown (p = 0.029) while “hopelessness” (powerless feeling, inability to find solutions) in post-lockdown (p = 0.001). “Self around COVID-19” (dying, getting sick) fear was relatively more frequent in youth (p = 0.039), while “hopelessness” in the elderly (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Collectively, these findings highlight that lockdown/post-lockdown periods generated temporally and demographically distinct COVID-19 related fears patterns, with special regard to youth and elderly, two particularly vulnerable populations when faced with sudden and unexpected dramatic events. For this reason, the particular ED “front-line service” status makes it a privileged observatory that can provide novel insights. From a mental health perspective, these latter can be translated into pragmatic, more personalized prevention strategies to reinforce specific resilience resources and mitigate the current and long-term pandemic’s impact.