BackgroundThis study will explore the validity of psychiatric diagnoses in administrative registers with special emphasis on comorbid anxiety and substance use disorders.MethodsAll new patients admitted to psychiatric hospital in northern Norway during one year were asked to participate. Of 477 patients found eligible, 272 gave their informed consent. 250 patients (52%) with hospital diagnoses comprised the study sample. Expert diagnoses were given on the basis of a structured diagnostic interview (M.I.N.I.PLUS) together with retrospective checking of the records. The hospital diagnoses were blind to the expert. The agreement between the expert’s and the clinicians’ diagnoses was estimated using Cohen’s kappa statistics.ResultsThe expert gave a mean of 3.4 diagnoses per patient, the clinicians gave 1.4. The agreement ranged from poor to good (schizophrenia). For anxiety disorders (F40-41) the agreement is poor (kappa = 0.12). While the expert gave an anxiety disorder diagnosis to 122 patients, the clinicians only gave it to 17. The agreement is fair concerning substance use disorders (F10-19) (kappa = 0.27). Only two out of 76 patients with concurrent anxiety and substance use disorders were identified by the clinicians.ConclusionsThe validity of administrative registers in psychiatry seems dubious for research purposes and even for administrative and clinical purposes. The diagnostic process in the clinic should be more structured and treatment guidelines should include comorbidity.

Our findings support a hypothesis that readmission risk is multifactorially determined and that interactions have to be considered.

The study has revealed several differences in resources, organisation and utilisation of the mental health services between the two compared areas. The very large variations indicate that underlying local patterns of service delivering must be further investigated and taken into account in the planning of the services development.

Stratifying on gender, diagnostic group and hospital revealed a general pattern of associations except for age.

The problem addressed in this paper is how continuity of care is related to characteristics of psychiatric services, previous events in a patient's pattern of care and patient characteristics. The present paper is a part of a Nordic Comparative Study on Sectorized Psychiatry in seven catchment areas in four Nordic countries. One-year-treated-incidence cohorts were used. Each patient was followed for 1 year after the first contact with the psychiatric service. Continuity of care was measured by the time from discharge from hospital to the first subsequent day-patient or outpatient contact. Notable findings were large differences in the continuity of care in the seven services, high proportions of discharges without any aftercare contacts and long time lags between discharges and aftercare contacts in most of the catchment areas. A Cox regression analysis revealed that aftercare following hospitalisation seems to be more probable if the outpatient services are located geographically close to the patients, if the hospitalisation lasted between 2 and 4 weeks, if there was a community care contact shortly before the hospital admission and if the patient is not retired and not divorced. Staff resources were not related to continuity of care.

There was a great variation in rates of compulsory care. No consistent rural-urban pattern in rates of commitment was found. It is discussed whether a formal referral procedure to the psychiatric service is associated with higher rates of compulsory care.

BackgroundThe epidemiology of suicidality shows considerable variation across sites. However, one of the strongest predictors of suicide is a suicidal attempt. Knowledge of the epidemiology of suicidal ideas and attempts in the general population as well as in the health care system is of importance for designing preventive strategies. In this study, we will explore the role of the psychiatric hospital in suicide prevention by investigating treated incidence of suicidal ideation and attempt, and further, discern whether sociodemographic, clinical and service utilization factors differ between these two groups at admission.MethodsThe study was a prospective cohort study on treated incidence in a 1-year period and 12-month follow-up. The two psychiatric hospitals in northern Norway, serving a population of about 500,000 people, participated in the study. A total of 676 first-time admissions were retrospectively checked for suicidality at the time of admission. A study sample of 168 patients was found eligible for logistic regression analysis to elucidate the risk profiles of suicidal ideators versus suicidal attempters. GAF, HoNOS and SCL-90-R were used to assess symptomatology at baseline.Results52.2% of all patients admitted had suicidal ideas at admission and 19.7% had attempted suicide. In the study sample, there were no differences in risk profile between the two groups with regard to sociodemographic and clinical factors. Males who had made a suicide attempt were less likely to have been in contact with an out-patient clinic before the attempt. The rating scales not measuring suicidality directly showed no differences in symptomatology.ConclusionThe findings provide evidence for the importance of the psychiatric hospital in suicide prevention. About half of the admissions were related to suicidality and the similar risk profiles found in suicidal ideators and suicidal attempters indicate that it is the ideators who mostly need treatment that get admitted to the hospital, and should be evaluated and treated with equal concern as those who have attempted suicide.

In spite of the limitations due to minor differences in the data collection phase in the two countries, the study clearly demonstrates differences in diagnostic practice between the countries.