Civil Commitment in the Psychiatric Emergency Room

Segal, Steven

doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1988.01800320064008

Cited by 59 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most state commitment statutes today specify that patients may be involuntarily admitted to a hospital only on grounds of danger to self, danger to others, or (in many states) grave disability, and then only if the condition results from mental disorder. Judicial interpretations of these statutes indicate that the common denominator, i.e., the only legitimate basis for civil commitment, is danger due to mental disorder (Segal, Watson, Goldfinger, & Averbuck, 1988a, p. 748). Recent research on civil commitment indicates that clinicians employ a shared concept of dangerousness that can be defined in specific terms, related to psychiatric disorder, and used to predict civil commitment in the psychiatric emergency room (Segal et al, 1988a, 1988b, 1988c).…”

Section: Clinical Judgment and Involuntary Hospitalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of inpatient mental health services by members of ethnic minority groups.

Snowden¹,

Cheung²

1990

American Psychologist

384

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National data on psychiatric hospitalization point to marked ethnic-related differences. Blacks and Native Americans are considerably more likely than Whites to be hospitalized; Blacks are more likely than Whites to be admitted as schizophrenic and less likely to be diagnosed as having an affective disorder; Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders are less likely than Whites to be admitted, but remain for a lengthier stay, at least in state and county mental hospitals. These differences are clear-cut, but they ignore a major source of care: psychiatric hospitalization in placements other than psychiatric units and hospitals. Explanations for observed minority-White differences in hospitalization can be evaluated only partially or not at all: Such explanations include ethnic-related differences in socioeconomic standing and in the prevalence of major psychopathology; differential stigma, or capacity to tolerate or support a dysfunctional significant other; access and use of alternative services; and bias in the behavior of gatekeepers, especially practitioners assigning diagnostic labels and making involuntary commitment decisions. More research is needed to help explain these striking differences in utilization.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Judgment and Involuntary Hospitalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of inpatient mental health services by members of ethnic minority groups.

Snowden¹,

Cheung²

1990

American Psychologist

384

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the previous studies were based on univariate methods, but Marson et al (14) pointed out that univariate methods have produced several factors that appear to be significant, but do not remain significant when multivariate methods are used. There have been several multivariate studies (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25), and a few of these examined the interactions between the variables involved (19,22,23).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If male subjects are considered to be more dangerous than females, this may be the explan-ation. Variables indicating that a patient is dangerous have normally been associated with an increased probability of hospitalization (13,14,19,20,23).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determinants of decision‐making in the screening procedure of a community psychiatric service

Søgaard

Søndergaard²

1996

Acta Psychiatr Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is a predictor analysis of the screening procedure followed by a psychiatric service for a period of 1 year preceding and a period of 1 year following the introduction of community psychiatry. Throughout this period, the psychiatric service consisted of a local service within the catchment area and a central service at a psychiatric hospital outside the area. At the time of the reorganization, the responsibility for the psychiatric service was transferred from the public health authorities to the social services. Before the reorganization, screenings were conducted on the basis of referral papers or simply as a result of telephone communication. After the reorganization, the screening procedure was intensified by means of a pre-examination. One aim of the reorganization was to ensure that the severely mentally ill take priority over patients characterized predominantly by social strain. Patients with manic-depressive psychosis and other psychoses showed a significantly increased probability of being accepted for treatment, whereas those with schizophrenia showed no significant increase, irrespective of the service reorganization. Similarly, manic-depressive psychosis and other psychoses (not schizophrenia) were significant predictors of hospitalization at the mental hospital outside the catchment area as well as hospitalization in the local facilities, irrespective of the service reorganization. Indicators of social strain were not given higher priority following the service reorganization.

show abstract

“…Segal et al (8) observed in 251 evaluations in 5 California public psychiatric emergency rooms that patients who were retained, whether new to the system or having histories of hospitalization, rated higher on measures of danger to self, danger to others and grave disability than patients who were released. Being more severely symptomatic, they were more often given major diagnoses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors predicting readmissions in personality disorders and other nonpsychotic illnesses. A retrospective study on 64 first‐ever admissions to the Psychiatric Clinic of Turku, Finland

Korkeila

Karlsson

Kujari

1995

Acta Psychiatr Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A retrospective study of factors predicting readmissions and follow-up treatment was undertaken of all first-ever episodes of inpatient care (age under 65), excluding psychotic and organic mental disorders, during 1987 and 1988 in University Psychiatric Clinic in Turku City Hospital, Finland. The cohort consisted of 64 subjects, 24 men and 40 women. The study was carried out in the end of 1993, thus allowing about 5 years of follow-up. The diagnosis of personality disorder did not predict readmission. The only factor predicting readmission nearly significantly was not having a relationship. The incidence of the revolving door syndrome, defined as 4 or more admissions within 5 years, was 12.5%. Women had a greater risk of readmission, but not that of the revolving door. Patients who had psychotherapy as follow-up treatment showed a frequency of 8% for 4 or more admissions, whereas patients who had no follow-up treatment had a frequency of 21% for 4 or more readmissions. The only factor significantly predicting follow-up treatment arrangement was previous treatment contact.

show abstract

Civil Commitment in the Psychiatric Emergency Room

Cited by 59 publications

References 17 publications

Use of inpatient mental health services by members of ethnic minority groups.

Use of inpatient mental health services by members of ethnic minority groups.

Determinants of decision‐making in the screening procedure of a community psychiatric service

Factors predicting readmissions in personality disorders and other nonpsychotic illnesses. A retrospective study on 64 first‐ever admissions to the Psychiatric Clinic of Turku, Finland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About