Differences between psychiatric disorders in the clinical and functional effectiveness of an acute psychiatric day hospital, for acutely ill psychiatric patients

Crisis and acute mental health care for people who have been given a diagnosis of a 'personality disorder': a systematic review

BACKGROUND

People who have been given a diagnosis of a 'personality disorder' need access to good quality mental healthcare when in crisis, but the evidence underpinning crisis services for this group is limited. We synthesised quantitative studies reporting outcomes for people with a 'personality disorder' diagnosis using crisis and acute mental health services.

METHODS

We searched OVID Medline, PsycInfo, PsycExtra, Web of Science, HMIC, CINAHL Plus, Clinical Trials and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that reported at least one clinical or social outcome following use of crisis and acute care for people given a 'personality disorder' diagnosis. We performed a narrative synthesis of evidence for each model of care found.

RESULTS

We screened 16,953 records resulting in 35 studies included in the review. Studies were published between 1987-2022 and conducted in 13 countries. Six studies were RCTs, the remainder were non randomised controlled studies or cohort studies reporting change over time. Studies were found reporting outcomes for crisis teams, acute hospital admission, acute day units, brief admission, crisis-focused psychotherapies in a number of settings, Mother and Baby units, an early intervention service and joint crisis planning. The evidence for all models of care except brief admission and outpatient-based psychotherapies was assessed as low or very low certainty.

CONCLUSION

The literature found was sparse and of low quality. There were no high-quality studies that investigated outcomes following use of crisis team or hospital admission for this group. Studies investigating crisis-focused psychological interventions showed potentially promising results.

Determinants of clinical outcome and length of stay in acute care forensic psychiatry units

Criminological and sociodemographic variables, such as previous criminal convictions, increased risk of violence, early onset of mental disorder, antisocial personality, psychosis and low social support, have all been related to longer length of stay (LoS) and poorer outcome in long stay forensic services. The factors impacting on LoS and clinical response in acute care specialized units are poorly documented. To address this issue, we examined the psychiatric records of all cases admitted between January 1st and December 31th 2020 in the sole acute ward for detained persons located in the central prison of the Geneva County, Switzerland. Information on judicial status included pre-trial versus sentence execution, previous incarcerations, and age of the first incarceration. Sociodemographic data included age, gender, marital status, and education attainment. Previous inpatient stays prior to incarceration were recorded. All of the ICD-10 clinical diagnoses were made by two independent, board-certified psychiatrists blind to the scope of the study. The standardized assessment was based on the HoNOS (Health of Nation Outcome Scales) at admission and discharge, HONOS-secure at admission, HCR-20 (Historical Clinical Risk 20) version 2, PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist Revised), and SAPROF (Structured Assessment of Protective Factors). Stepwise forward multiple linear regression models predicting the LoS and delta HONOS respectively were built with the above mentioned parameters. The selected variables were then used in univariate and multivariable regression models. Higher HCR-scores (mainly on clinical items), and longer LoS were related to higher delta HONOS scores. In contrast, cases in pre-trial detention showed a worst clinical outcome. In multivariable models, all three variables remained independent predictors of the clinical outcome and explained 30.7% of its variance. Only education and diagnosis of borderline personality were related to the LoS and explained 12.6% of its variance in multivariable models. Our results suggest that the use of acute wards specialized in forensic psychiatry are mainly useful for patients with prior inpatient care experience, and higher violence risk during sentence execution. In contrast, they seem to be less performant for persons in pre-trial detention that could benefit from less restrictive clinical settings.

Physician-Patient Relationship in Current Cosmetic Surgery Demands More than Mere Respect for Patient Autonomy—Is It Time for the Anti-Paternalistic Model?

The ethical framework of cosmetic surgery is distinct from the one associated with clinical medicine. This distinctiveness has led to significant difficulties in conceptualizing the physician-patient relationship (PPR), as most models have been developed specifically for the latter. The purpose of this article is to show that the PPR in cosmetic surgery can be better described through a distinct approach that we name the anti-paternalistic model of the PPR, and we will briefly present the differences between it and autonomy-based models. We will analyze the principle of non-interference, the variable degree of autonomy of both the patient and the physician within this relationship, the handling of the relevant information, the principle of beneficence as satisfaction, the difficulties regarding the informed consent, the algorithm allowing for the refusal of the procedure, and children-related issues. Based on this analysis, we will show that an anti-paternalistic model of the PPR is preferable to an autonomy-based one, as it allows for better clarification of the underlying ethical issues involved in cosmetic surgery.

Assessing the severity of psychiatric disorders using the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales: An equipercentile linking analysis

OBJECTIVE

The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales was developed as an overall measure of mental health, applicable to the complete range of psychiatric disorders. Meanwhile, it is a benchmark tool for service providers and is also used for the allocation of costs and funding. The ability of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales to assess and differentiate the severity of psychiatric disorders is largely unknown, as it is the interpretation of a change in score. We aim to establish Health of the Nation Outcome Scales cut-off and benchmark values for severity and improvement - respectively change, using equipercentile linking to the Clinical Global Impression scales.

METHODS

In a clinical sample of 30,616 individuals with a psychiatric disorder, we used a multivariate regression analysis to determine the correlation between the scales and possible confounders. We used an equipercentile linking analysis of the Clinical Global Impressions severity scale with the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales sum score to establish cut-off values for severity. The linking of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales sum score difference and the percentage of change to the Clinical Global Impression improvement scale determined benchmark values for change (i.e. improvement or deterioration).

RESULTS

The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales and Clinical Global Impression scales showed a Spearman correlation of 0.38 (p < 0.000). Clinical Global Impression-Severity: 'borderline-ill' corresponded to Health of the Nation Outcome Scales score 3-5; 'mildly ill' to 6-10; 'moderately ill' to 11-16; 'markedly ill' to 17-25; 'severely ill' to 26-35; and 'extremely ill' to a score ⩾36. The Spearman correlation between the percentage change of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales was 0.39 (p > 0.000); Clinical Global Impression-Improvement: 'minimally improved' corresponded to Health of the Nation Outcome Scales reduction of 4 points or 9%; 'much-improved' to 12 points or 48%; 'very-much-improved' to ⩾20 points or ⩾90%. Clinical Global Impression-Improvement: 'minimally worse' corresponded to an increase of 6 points or 25%; 'much-worse' to 12 points or 54%; and finally, 'very-much-worse' to >18 points or ⩾82%.

CONCLUSION

Our results allow for the comparison of severity and response to treatment of patients with a psychiatric disorder, independent of diagnosis.