[Staffing levels and patient-related outcomes : Systematic literature review on international evidence]

[Effects of the Decision of the German Constitutional Court on mechanical restraint in 2018 : Coercive measures in the psychiatric hospitals in Baden-Wuerttemberg in 2019 compared to the years 2015-2017]

On 23 July 2018 the German Constitutional Court decided that mechanical restraint in psychiatric patients with 5 or 7‑point mechanical restraint lasting longer than 30 min requires a judicial authorization. On the same day, the German Association for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (DGPPN) published guidelines on the prevention of coercion and violence. Together, this can be considered as the strongest intervention to reduce coercion on a national level worldwide. The registry for coercive measures in the Federal State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, available since 2015 and comprising all 32 hospitals licensed to admit involuntary patients, has made it possible to evaluate the effect of the legal change. We analyzed the mean percentage of patients subjected to coercive measures and the mean cumulative duration of these interventions in ICD-10 diagnostic groups in psychiatric hospitals from 2015 to 2017 compared to 2019 among a total of 438,003 admissions. The percentage of patients subjected to any kind of freedom-restricting coercion (restraint or seclusion) decreased from 6.7% (average 2015-2017) to 5.8% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Effects were strongest in patients with organic (F0) and schizophrenic disorders (F2). The percentage of patients subjected to mechanical restraint decreased from 4.8% to 3.6% in 2019, and the percentage of mechanical restraints less than 30 min increased from 1.8% to 10.5%. Vice versa, the percentage of patients subjected to seclusion increased from 2.9% to 3.3%. The median cumulated duration of restraint and seclusion per affected case decreased from 12.7h to 10.9 h (median). The intervention was probably responsible for a reduction of the percentage of cases subjected to coercive measures by about 13% and a reduction of the duration of these measures per affected case by about 14%.

[Outsourcing of nursing staff costs in psychiatry? : A secondary data analysis of possible effects on the remuneration system in psychiatry]

BACKGROUND

Nursing staff were excluded from the German DRG system for somatic hospital treatment and will be funded separately in the future. In psychiatry and psychosomatic medicine, binding personnel requirements have been defined but there has been no regulation of how these personnel requirements are adequately financed.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to analyze the costs of inpatient psychiatry and psychosomatic medicine and to evaluate possible effects of funding nursing staff separately.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This analysis is based on aggregated daily treatment costs of selected hospitals (data year 2018), which annually submit their performance and cost data to the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) for the empirical further development of the remuneration system.

RESULTS

Nursing staff represent the largest cost factor in inpatient psychiatry and psychosomatic medicine. Excluding nursing staff drastically reduces the variance of psychiatric DRG renumeration and even exceeds its proportion of the total costs. After outsourcing nursing costs, psychiatric DRGs achieve only a very limited cost separation.

CONCLUSION

The binding personnel requirements necessitate adequate financing of nursing staff. This raises the debate about the further development of psychiatric remuneration. The question arises as to whether the effort associated with using the psychiatric DRG system justifies its usefulness as an instrument for budgeting when core functions such as cost separation are only given to a limited extent. Alternative approaches to budgeting should also be examined for putting costs and benefits in a better ratio.

Individual and Needs-Based: The Platform-Model for Personnel Allocation in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy

Objective: An initiative by scientific societies of psychiatry, child and adolescent psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and further associations established the Platform-Model for the development of a needs-based system for adequate personnel allocation in psychiatric inpatient and day clinic units. We present the development of the instrument and a pilot study to identify feasibility and limitations. Methods: The basis of the study was a threefold methodological approach. Paradigmatic case vignettes adequately reflecting symptomatology and circumstances were described and validated, working profiles were generated and validated, and a matrix representing different needs-based dimensions was developed. Through reference date surveys, patients were assigned to needs-based clusters and Psych-PV categories. The required treatment effort under consideration of guidelines or expert consensus was estimated in several rounds of expert panels (Delphi method). Results: The pilot study proves the feasibility of the Platform-Model. Methodological findings as well as limitations of the model were identified in order to further develop the Platform-Model. Conclusions: The Platform-Model cannot serve as a tool to describe clinical pathways, but it appears to be an adequate and practical tool for assessment of the required staffing level based on patient needs independent of diagnosis and setting.