Background: When persons with a mental illness present a danger to themselves or others, involuntary hospital admission can be used to initiate an immediate inpatient treatment. Often, the patients have the right to appeal against compulsory admission. These processes are implemented in most mental health-care systems, but regulations and legal framework differ widely. In the Swiss canton of Basel-Stadt, a new regulation was implemented in January 2013. While the current literature holds some evidence for factors associated with involuntary admission, knowledge on who uses the right to appeal against admission is sparse. Aims: The study aims to examine if specific sociodemographic and clinical characteristics are associated with involuntary admission and with an appeal against the compulsory admission order. Method: Routine clinical data of all inpatient cases admitted during the period from January 2013 to December 2015 at the Psychiatric University Hospital Basel were extracted. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses were used to examine the association of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with “involuntary admission” and “appeal against compulsory admission order.” Results: Of the 8,917 cases included in the present study, 942 (10.6%) were admitted involuntarily. Of these, 250 (26.5%) lodged an appeal against the compulsory admission order. Compared with cases admitted on a voluntary legal status, cases admitted involuntarily were older and were admitted more often during the nighttime or weekend. Moreover, involuntarily admitted cases had more often a principal diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Patients from cases where an appeal was lodged were more often female, had more often Swiss nationality, and were more often diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Conclusion: Despite legal changes, the frequency of involuntary admissions in the observed catchment area seems to be relatively stable across the last 20 years. The percentage of appeals has decreased from 2000 to 2015, and only comparably few patients make use of the possibility to appeal. Better knowledge of the regulations, higher social functioning, and lower insight into illness might be associated with a higher probability of lodging an appeal. Future research should examine if specific patient groups are in need of additional assistance to exert their rights to appeal.

BackgroundImplementing an open door policy is a complex intervention comprising changes in therapeutic stance, team processes, and a change from locked to open doors. Recent studies show that it can lead to a reduction of seclusion and forced medication, but the role of the physical change of door status is still unclear.AimsThe aims of this study is to examine the transition from closed to predominantly open doors on a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) and its associations with the frequency of seclusion and forced medication.MethodA PICU at the Department of Adult Psychiatry, University of Basel, Switzerland, implemented evidence-based strategies for operating an open door policy within the context of acute psychiatry and participated in a hospital-wide implementation of an open door policy before changing door status. 131 inpatient cases hospitalized on this PICU were examined regarding the frequency of seclusion and forced medication using explorative analyses over a time span of 32 weeks (16 weeks after implementation of the new treatment concept but before door opening, 16 weeks after door opening).ResultsFollowing door status change, the PICU was completely open on 51% of the days and partly open on 23% of the days. The mean number of open hours per day was 12.8 ± 3.9 h. The frequency of forced medication did not change, and the frequency of seclusion decreased significantly [χ2 (1, N = 131) = 4.73, p = 0.036].ConclusionThis pilot study underlines the potential of a change of door status to attain a reduction in safety measures in the first 4 months.

This underlines the potential of the introduction of an open-door policy to attain a long-term reduction in involuntary measures.

No abstract

No abstract

The objective is to investigate the relationship between psychopathology measured by the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) and concurrent global assessment of functioning (GAF) and subjective well-being under neuroleptics (SWN) in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD) regarding severity of illness and disease phase. We analyzed a sample of 202 SSD patients consisting of first episode psychosis (FEP) and multiple episode psychosis (MEP) patients followed up to 12 months using linear mixed models. All PANSS syndromes except excitement were associated with GAF scores (positive syndrome: p < 0.001, d = 1.21; negative syndrome: p = 0.029, d = 0.015; disorganized syndrome: p < 0.001, d = 0.37; anxiety/depression syndrome: p < 0.001, d = 0.49), and positive symptoms had an increasing impact on global functioning with higher severity of illness (mildly ill: p = 0.039, d = 0.22; moderately ill: p < 0.001, d = 0.28; severely ill: p < 0.001, d = 0.69). SWN was associated with positive (p = 0.002, d = 0.22) and anxiety/depression (p < 0.001, d = 0.38) syndromes. Subgroup analyses showed differing patterns depending on illness severity and phase. Over all our results show different patterns of associations of psychopathology and concurrent functioning and subjective well-being. These findings contribute knowledge on the possible role of specific psychopathological syndromes for the functioning and well-being of our patients and may enable tailored treatments depending on severity and phase of illness.

No abstract

No abstract