[Changes in the Practice of Involuntary Hospitalization During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Experiences and Opinions of Chief Psychiatrists]

[Changes in the routine work and moral distress in psychiatric care during the COVID-19 pandemic : A survey among physicians active in inpatient care in Germany]

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic a number of ethical challenges have arisen in the healthcare system. A psychological response to moral challenges is termed moral distress (MD).

OBJECTIVE

Identification of causes of MD in inpatient psychiatric care in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A survey was conducted using a self-administered non-validated online questionnaire as part of a cross-sectional study, in which 26 items about the experience of MD were examined and open questions about the handling of the pandemic and its effects on everyday work were posed. Physicians who worked in inpatient psychiatric care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany were surveyed anonymously with a convenience sample. The data acquisition took place between 17 November 2020 and 6 May 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 141 participants were included. They indicated multiple pandemic-related changes in their daily work partly resulting in MD.

CONCLUSION

MD is a neglected potential burden of inpatient psychiatric care under pandemic conditions (and beyond), which requires further research and an adequate handling. These results include implications for decision makers in crisis teams as well as a need for support services such as clinical ethics consultation services.

Situational vulnerability within mental healthcare - a qualitative analysis of ethical challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Mental healthcare users and patients were described as a particularly vulnerable group in the debate on the burdens of the COVID-19 pandemic. Just what this means and what normative conclusions can be derived from it depend to a large extent on the underlying concept of vulnerability. While a traditional understanding locates vulnerability in the characteristics of social groups, a situational and dynamic approach considers how social structures produce vulnerable social positions. The situation of users and patients in different psychosocial settings during the COVID-19 pandemic has not yet been comprehensively considered and ethically analyzed under the aspect of situational vulnerability.

METHODS

We present the results of a retrospective qualitative analysis of a survey of ethical challenges in different mental healthcare facilities of a large regional mental healthcare provider in Germany. We evaluate them ethically using a dynamic and situational understanding of vulnerability.

RESULTS

Difficulties in implementing infection prevention measures, restrictions of mental health services in favor of infection prevention, social isolation, negative health effects on mental healthcare users and patients, and challenges in implementing regulations on state and provider levels within the local specificities emerged across different mental healthcare settings as ethically salient topics.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying a situational and dynamic understanding of vulnerability allows the identification of specific factors and conditions that have contributed to an increased context-dependent vulnerability for mental healthcare users and patients. These factors and conditions should be considered on the level of state and local regulations to reduce and address vulnerability.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on involuntary and urgent inpatient admissions for psychiatric disorders in a German-wide hospital network

The impact of COVID-19 on urgent and involuntary inpatient admissions, as well as coercive measures, has not been assessed so far. A retrospective study was performed analyzing claims data for inpatient psychiatric admissions between 2018 and 2020 (total n = 64,502) from a large German Hospital network. Whilst the total number of urgent admissions decreased in 2020 (12,383) as compared to 2019 (13,493) and 2018 (13,469), a significant increase in the percentage of urgent admissions was observed in 2020 (62.9%) as compared to 2019 (60.6%) and 2018 (59.7%). Compared to this study period, Odds ratio (OR) for proportion were 0.87 (0.84, 0.91) and 0.91 (0.87, 0.95) for 2018 and 2019, respectively (both p < 0.00001). Percentage of involuntary psychiatric admissions also significantly increased in 2020 and OR compared to this study period ranged from 0.86 (0.81, 0.93) in 2019 (p < 0.0001) to 0.88 (0.82, 0.95) in 2018 (p < 0.001). Proportion of coercive measures significantly increased in 2020 as compared to 2019 (p = 0.004). Taken together, the present study shows an increase in the proportion of involuntary and urgent psychiatric admissions during the whole pandemic year 2020 as compared to 2018 and 2019. The long-term impact of these COVID-19 pandemic-related trends on psychiatric health care needs to be assessed in further studies.