Background Despite multiple ethical issues and little evidence of their efficacy, compulsory admission and treatment are still common psychiatric practice. Therefore, we aimed to assess potential differences in treatment and outcome between voluntarily and compulsorily admitted patients. Methods We extracted clinical data from inpatients treated in an academic hospital in Zurich, Switzerland between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2019. Observation time started upon the first admission and ended after a one-year follow-up after the last discharge. Several sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, including Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) scores, were retrospectively obtained. We then identified risk factors of compulsory admission using logistic regression in order to perform a widely balanced propensity score matching. Altogether, we compared 4,570 compulsorily and 4,570 voluntarily admitted propensity score-matched patients. Multiple differences between these groups concerning received treatment, coercive measures, clinical parameters, and service use outcomes were detected. Results Upon discharge, compulsorily admitted patients reached a similar HoNOS sum score in a significantly shorter duration of treatment. They were more often admitted for crisis interventions, were prescribed less pharmacologic treatment, and received fewer therapies. During the follow-up, voluntarily admitted patients were readmitted more often, while the time to readmission did not differ. Conclusions Under narrowly set circumstances, compulsory admissions might be helpful to avert and relieve exacerbations of severe psychiatric disorders.
IntroductionDay and time of admission influence treatment outcomes and prognosis in several medical specialties; this seems related to resources' ability. It is largely unknown whether this also applies to mental health services. We investigate the relationship between time of admission, patients' demographic and clinical profile, and treatment outcomes.MethodsDemographic and clinical profiles of admitted and discharged patients to a general psychiatric ward between January 1st, 2013 and December 31st, 2020, were analyzed. In addition, we used the last year (i.e., 2020) to monitor rehospitalization. Time of admission was defined as weekdays (working day, weekend) and dayshifts (daytime, dusk, and dawn).ResultsDuring the study period, 12,449 patient admissions occurred. The mean age of the sample was 48.05 ± 20.90 years, with 49.32% (n = 6,140) females. Most admissions (n = 10,542, 84%) occurred on working days. Two-fifths of admissions (39.7%, n = 4,950) were compulsory, with a higher rate outside daytime hours. Patients had slight differences in the clinical profile, resulting from evaluating the different items of the Health of Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS). Patients admitted on night shifts, weekends, and holidays showed a shorter length of stay; patients compulsorily admitted during daytime (disregarding the day of the week) had a longer length of stay. All patient groups achieved a robust clinical improvement (i.e., an HoNOS score reduction of around 50%), with similar readmission rates.DiscussionThe main finding of our study is the relationship between “daytime hours” and fewer compulsory admissions, a result of the interplay between demographics, clinical characteristics, and out-of-clinic service availability (such as ambulatory psychiatric- psychological praxis; day-clinic; home-treatment). The differing clinical profile, in turn, determines differences in treatment selection, with patients admitted after office hours experiencing a higher rate of coercive measures. The shorter length of stay for out-of-office admissions might result from the hospitalization as an intervention. These results should encourage the implementation of outpatient crisis-intervention services, available from dusk till dawn.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.