Custody, care and country of origin: demographic and diagnostic admission statistics at an inner-city adult psychiatry unit

Risk factors for involuntary admission in a Romanian patient sample

BACKGROUND

Involuntary admission is widely used in psychiatry, usually requiring that the patient present an imminent danger to himself or others. Previous studies have established several predictors for involuntary admission, but they have been almost exclusively conducted in Western European or North American countries. By contrast, data on this topic from Eastern European countries is virtually absent. Historically, involuntary admission has been often used as a tool for political repression in Romania before the fall of the communist regime. While there have been significant changes in the legal framework in the last 30 years, there is still no real-world data to build upon.

METHODS

We analyzed a sample of 177 patients admitted to the "Alexandru Obregia" psychiatric hospital in Bucharest between November 2022 and January 2023, of which 49.7% (88) were involuntary hospitalizations. We collected socio-demographic and clinical data by both by direct interview, and by consulting patient records, attending physicians and relatives.

RESULTS

Socio-demographic factors predictive for involuntary admission were unemployment, lower income, and urban living. Of the clinical variables analyzed, diagnosis of psychosis or mania on admission carried increased risk of involuntary hospitalization, as did nonadherence to treatment, higher disease severity and aggression. Hospital presentation by police or ambulance carried significant additional risk compared to self-referral.

CONCLUSION

Certain categories of patients are considerably more likely to be involuntarily hospitalized and there appears to be considerable interrelatedness between the identified risk factors.

The association between objective necessity for involuntary treatment as measured during admission, legal admission status and clinical factors in an inpatient psychiatry setting

Involuntary psychiatric admission is a common feature of mental health services around the world, but there is limited research about tools to support clinical assessment of objective necessity for compulsory care. Our study aimed to determine the relationships between objective necessity for involuntary treatment as measured by the Compulsory Treatment Checklist (CTC), legal admission status (voluntary or involuntary) and various clinical parameters (e.g. symptoms, insight) in an Irish inpatient psychiatry setting. The CTC is relatively new tool, developed and described by Brissos et al. (2017) in Portugal and designed to evaluate the necessity for compulsory treatment; its total score ranges from 0 to 50 (with higher scores indicating greater need for involuntary care). In our study, we used validated tools, including the CTC, to perform detailed assessments of 107 adult patients admitted to the acute psychiatry inpatient units of two general hospitals in Dublin, Ireland over a 30-month period. The most common diagnoses were affective disorders (46.7%), schizophrenia and related disorders (27.1%), and personality and behavioural disorders (11.2%). Over a quarter (27.1%) of patients had involuntary legal status. Higher CTC scores were significantly and independently associated with involuntary status (p < 0.001), more positive symptoms of schizophrenia (p < 0.001), and younger age (p = 0.031). The original Portuguese study of the CTC identified an optimal cut-off score of 23.5, which detected compulsory treatment with a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 93.6% in that sample. In our sample, the optimal cut-off score was 16.5, which detected compulsory treatment with a sensitivity of 82.8% and specificity of 69.2%. We conclude that the CTC is a useful tool not only in Portugal but in other countries too, and that its performance will likely vary across jurisdictions, resulting in different optimal cut-off scores in different countries.

England's rate of involuntary psychiatric admission is double that of the Republic of Ireland: Why? A consideration of some possible causes

Involuntary psychiatric admission or 'sectioning' is a serious event with clear implications for the right to liberty, among other rights. Rates of involuntary admission vary considerably across jurisdictions. The rate of involuntary admission in England is approximately double that in the Republic of Ireland. Why? This paper examines potential explanations for this difference, including the prevalence of mental disorder in the two jurisdictions, factors relating to mental health legislation, differing levels of police involvement in care-pathways, funding and resources, and attitudes to risk among the public and professionals. Overall, it appears that the relatively high rate of involuntary admission in England might be attributable to the role of perceived risk in shaping mental health law in England but not Ireland, the broader definition of 'mental disorder' in the Mental Health Act, 1983 in England, broader legal criteria for involuntary admission in the 1983 Act, differences in the operational definitions of 'voluntary patient' between the two jurisdictions and, possibly, increased involvement of police in pathways to care in England and differences in relation to different ethnic groups. The relatively higher number of inpatient beds in England could be a cause or a consequence of higher rates of involuntary admission. Future research could usefully focus on other factors that are also likely relevant: issues relating to social care, substance misuse, availability of alternative treatment options in the community and various other factors that are, as yet, unknown. The potential impact of risk aversion among mental health professionals and others merits particular attention.

The association between perceived coercion on admission and formal coercive practices in an inpatient psychiatric setting

Involuntary care is a feature of mental health services around the world. In addition to involuntary admission and treatment, specific coercive practices include seclusion and physical restraint. Our study aimed to determine the relationships, if any, between these practices and perceived coercion on admission among psychiatry inpatients in Ireland, as well as any relationships between perceived coercion on admission and variables such as age, gender and diagnosis. We included 107 psychiatry inpatients aged 18 years or over who were admitted to the acute psychiatry admission units in Tallaght University Hospital and Connolly Hospital, Dublin, Ireland over a 30-month period between September 2017 and February 2020. Over a quarter (27.1%) of participating patients had involuntary status; nine (8.4%) had experienced at least one episode of seclusion, and ten (9.3%) had experienced at least one episode of restraint. Perceived coercion on admission was significantly associated with involuntary status and female gender; perceived negative pressures on admission were significantly associated with involuntary status and positive symptoms of schizophrenia; perceived procedural injustice on admission was significantly associated with fewer negative symptoms, involuntary status, cognitive impairment and female gender; and negative affective reactions to hospitalisation on admission were significantly associated with birth in Ireland and being employed. Total score across these four subscales was significantly associated with involuntary status and positive symptoms, and had borderline significant associations with birth in Ireland, being employed and female gender. Overall, perceived coercion on admission, assessed in retrospect by the patient, is more closely associated with involuntary status and symptoms than it is with subsequent formal coercive practices, such as seclusion and restraint. The role of gender merits particular attention in future research, especially in relation to procedural injustice on admission and perceived coercion on admission.

Reducing coercion in mental healthcare

AIMS

To examine the extent and nature of coercive practices in mental healthcare and to consider the ethical, human rights challenges facing the current clinical practices in this area. We consider the epidemiology of coercion in mental health and appraise the efficacy of attempts to reduce coercion and make specific recommendations for making mental healthcare less coercive and more consensual.

METHODS

We identified references through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus. Search was limited to articles published from January 1980 to May 2018. Searches were carried out using the terms mental health (admission or detain* or detention or coercion) and treatment (forcible or involuntary or seclusion or restraint). Articles published during this period were further identified through searches in the authors' personal files and Google Scholar. Articles resulting from searches and relevant references cited in those articles were reviewed. Articles and reviews of non-psychiatric population, children under 16 years, and those pertaining exclusively to people with dementia were excluded.

RESULTS

Coercion in its various guises is embedded in mental healthcare. There is very little research in this area and the absence of systematic and routinely collected data is a major barrier to research as well as understanding the nature of coercion and attempts to address this problem. Examples of good practice in this area are limited and there is hardly any evidence pertaining to the generalisability or sustainability of individual programmes. Based on the review, we make specific recommendations to reduce coercive care. Our contention is that this will require more than legislative tinkering and will necessitate a fundamental change in the culture of psychiatry. In particular, we must ensure that clinical practice never compromises people's human rights. It is ethically, clinically and legally necessary to address the problem of coercion and make mental healthcare more consensual.

CONCLUSION

All forms of coercive practices are inconsistent with human rights-based mental healthcare. This is global challenge that requires urgent action.

Mental health law assessments: interagency cooperation and practice complexities

BACKGROUND

Assessments under mental health law, to determine whether compulsory admission is necessary, tend to be complex, multidisciplinary and inter-agency processes. This article presents the results of a regional audit of assessments under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

AIMS

The aims of the audit were to examine routine practice, identify any issues and so inform how policy and practice may be developed.

METHOD

The audit was designed by an inter-agency advisory group and audit team. Data were collected for a sample of 189 assessments. The sample was weighted to ensure all Health and Social Care Trusts and settings were appropriately represented.

RESULTS

These assessments involve high levels of need, risk and complexity. There were no major issues or concerns identified in the majority of assessments. The issues that were identified were mainly due to the difficulties in coordinating professionals and in securing a bed. In 3/189 (2%) of assessments, these issues were identified as contributing to increased distress and risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight the complexities of these processes and confirm the need for opportunities, such as joint training and inter-agency interface groups, to further promote cooperation and identify when pressures on resources are increasing risk and distress.

Ethnic variations in compulsory detention under the Mental Health Act: a systematic review and meta-analysis of international data

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups have an increased risk of involuntary psychiatric care. However, to our knowledge, there is no published meta-analysis that brings together both international and UK literature and allows for comparison of the two. This study examined compulsory detention in BAME and migrant groups in the UK and internationally, and aimed to expand upon existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the rates of detention for BAME populations.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched five databases (PsychINFO, MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, and CINAHL) for quantitative studies comparing involuntary admission, readmission, and inpatient bed days between BAME or migrant groups and majority or native groups, published between inception and Dec 3, 2018. We extracted data on study characteristics, patient-level data on diagnosis, age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, and occupational status, and our outcomes of interest (involuntary admission to hospital, readmission to hospital, and inpatient bed days) for meta-analysis. We used a random-effects model to compare disparate outcome measures. We assessed explanations offered for the differences between minority and majority groups for the strength of the evidence supporting them. This study is prospectively registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017078137.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 9511 studies for title and abstract screening, from which we identified 296 potentially relevant full-text articles. Of these, 67 met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in depth. We added four studies after reference and citation searches, meaning 71 studies in total were included. 1 953 135 participants were included in the studies. Black Caribbean patients were significantly more likely to be compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with those in white ethnic groups (odds ratio 2·53, 95% CI 2·03-3·16, p<0·0001). Black African patients also had significantly increased odds of being compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with white ethnic groups (2·27, 1·62-3·19, p<0·0001), as did, to a lesser extent, south Asian patients (1·33, 1·07-1·65, p=0·0091). Black Caribbean patients were also significantly more likely to be readmitted to hospital compared with white ethnic groups (2·30, 1·22-4·34, p=0·0102). Migrant groups were significantly more likely to be compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with native groups (1·50, 1·21-1·87, p=0·0003). The most common explanations for the increased risk of detainment in BAME populations included increased prevalence of psychosis, increased perceived risk of violence, increased police contact, absence of or mistrust of general practitioners, and ethnic disadvantages.

INTERPRETATION

BAME and migrant groups are at a greater risk of psychiatric detention than are majority groups, although there is variation across ethnic groups. Attempts to explain increased detention in ethnic groups should avoid amalgamation and instead carry out culturally-specific, hypothesis-driven studies to examine the numerous contributors to varying rates of detention.

FUNDING

University College London Hospitals National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London, and NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North Thames at Bart's Health NHS Trust.

Does Involuntary Admission With Bipolar Disorder Differ From Involuntary Admission With Schizophrenia and Related Disorders? A Report From the Dublin Involuntary Admission Study (DIAS)

BACKGROUND

While involuntary psychiatric admission and treatment are common, little is known about what impact different diagnoses have on specific features of involuntary admission and on how involuntary status is terminated (eg, by psychiatrists or tribunals, which are independent, court-like bodies reviewing involuntary admissions).

METHODS

We studied 2940 admissions, 423 (14.4%) of which were involuntary, at 3 psychiatry units covering a population of 552,019 individuals in Dublin, Ireland.

RESULTS

Involuntary patients were more likely than voluntary patients to be male and unmarried. The median length of stay for involuntary patients was 27 days compared with 10 days for voluntary patients (P<0.001). Schizophrenia (and related disorders, including schizoaffective disorder) and bipolar disorder accounted for 58.6% and 17.3% of involuntary admissions, respectively, compared with 20.1% and 12.4% of voluntary admissions (P<0.001). Psychiatrists revoked the majority of involuntary orders for both patients with bipolar disorder (85.3%) and those with schizophrenia (and related disorders) (86.6%); in contrast, tribunals did not revoke any involuntary admission orders for patients with bipolar disorder and revoked orders for 3.8% of patients with schizophrenia (and related disorders) (P=0.034). On the basis of multivariable testing, increased age among patients with bipolar disorder was the only characteristic among those studied (sex, age, marital status, occupation, involuntary admission criteria, length of stay, method of involuntary order revocation, location) that independently distinguished involuntary patients with bipolar disorder from those with schizophrenia (and related disorders) (P=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Involuntary admission of patients with bipolar disorder is similar in most respects to that of patients with schizophrenia (and related disorders). Consequently, it is important that measures aimed at reducing the need for involuntary admission (eg, patient advance statements/advance directives) are implemented equally across all diagnostic groups associated with involuntary care.

Which involuntary admissions are revoked by mental health tribunals? A report from the Dublin Involuntary Admission Study (DIAS)

Little is known about which involuntary psychiatry patients are likely to have their involuntary admission orders revoked by mental health tribunals or review boards and which are not. We studied 2940 admissions, of which 423 (14.4%) were involuntary, at three adult psychiatry units covering a population of 552,019 people in Dublin. A majority of involuntary admission orders were revoked by psychiatrists (94.6%) rather than tribunals (3.0%). Revocation by tribunal was associated with older age and a diagnosis of schizophrenia. More detailed information about the conduct and outcome of tribunals is needed to better protect the rights of the mentally ill.

Variations in involuntary admission rates at three psychiatry centres in the Dublin Involuntary Admission Study (DIAS): Can the differences be explained?

Involuntary psychiatric admission is an established practice for patients who are acutely or severely mentally ill but the factors contributing to involuntary (as opposed to voluntary) admission are not fully clear. Nor is it clear why rates of involuntary admission often vary between hospitals within the same jurisdiction. We studied all admissions, voluntary and involuntary, in three inpatient psychiatry units in Dublin, Ireland, which cover a population of 552,019 people, over a one-year period (1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015, inclusive), as part of the Dublin Involuntary Admission Study (DIAS). During the study period, there was a total of 1136 admissions to these three units, of which 17% were involuntary for all or part of their admission. The overall admission rate (205.8 admissions per 100,000 population per year) was lower than the national rate (387.9) but this varied substantially across the three units studied. On multi-variable analysis, involuntary admission status was associated with male gender, being unmarried, and a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and was not significantly associated with age, occupation or which inpatient unit the person was admitted to. We conclude that variations in involuntary admission rates between different psychiatry admission units in Dublin are significantly explained by patient-level variables (such as gender, marital status and diagnosis) rather than centre-level variables, but that much of the variation in admission status between patients remains unexplained. Future, multi-level research could usefully focus on other patient-level factors of possible relevance (e.g. symptom severity), centre-level factors (e.g. local mental health service resourcing) and community-level factors (e.g. socio-economic circumstances in different areas) in order to further elucidate unexplained variance in admission status between patients.

Voluntary and involuntary psychiatric admissions in a suburban area: comparison with national rates, diagnosis and other correlates of involuntary admission status

Objectives

To establish if the relatively low rate of involuntary psychiatric admission in a suburban area between 2007 and 2011 was maintained in 2014/2015, and explore key correlates of involuntary status.

Methods

We used existing hospital records and data sources to extract rates and selected potential correlates of voluntary and involuntary admission in south west Dublin (catchment area: 273 419 people) over 18 months in 2014/2015 and compared these with published national data from the census and Health Research Board.

Results

The rate of involuntary admission in the suburban area studied between 2007 and 2011 was 33.8 involuntary admissions per 100 000 population annually, which was lower than the national rate (48.6). By 2014/2015, the rate of involuntary admission in this area had risen to 46.8 involuntary admissions per 100 000 population annually, similar to the national rate (44.9). Nevertheless, the overall (voluntary and involuntary) admission rate in the suburban area (346.7 admissions per 100 000 population annually) was still lower the national rate (387.9), owing to a lower rate of voluntary admission in the suburban area (299.9) compared to Ireland as a whole (342.9). Multi-variable testing demonstrated that diagnosis was the strongest driver of involuntary admission in the suburban area: this area had 28.5 involuntary admissions per 100 000 population annually with schizophrenia or related disorders, compared to 18.9 nationally. Schizophrenia and related disorders accounted for 60.9% of involuntary admissions in the suburban area compared to 42.1% nationally.

Conclusions

Schizophrenia is the strongest driver of involuntary admission in the suburban area in this study.

Exploring and explaining involuntary care: The relationship between psychiatric admission status, gender and other demographic and clinical variables

Involuntary admission and treatment are features of psychiatric care in many countries, but the relationship between involuntary status and gender (among other factors) is not clear. We examined demographic and diagnostic factors associated with involuntary admission in a general adult psychiatry service in a deprived area of Dublin's north inner-city over a 7-year period (2008 to 2014 inclusive). Over this period, there were 1099 admissions, yielding an annual admission rate of 504.8 admissions per 100,000 population per year. When adjusted for deprivation, this rate (387.7) was lower than the national rate (413.9). Consistent with other inner-city areas in Dublin, 14.1% of admissions were involuntary, yielding an involuntary admission rate of 71.2 per 100,000 population per year (deprivation-adjusted rate: 54.8), which is higher than the national rate (39.4). After controlling for age, occupation, marital status and diagnosis, the only independent predictors of admission status were place of origin (p<0.001) and male gender (p=0.001). These findings are consistent with studies showing associations between male gender and involuntary status in the United States, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, France, and Luxembourg. In contrast, female gender is associated with involuntary status in Switzerland, Brazil, and China. These cross-national differences are likely related to differing legal traditions and different criteria for involuntary admission, possibly related to varying emphases placed on "dangerousness" as a mandatory criterion for involuntary hospitalization. This merits further, cross-national study.