Increases in Inpatient Psychiatry Beds Operated by Systems, For-Profits, and Chains, 2010-2016

Institutional Betrayal in Inpatient Psychiatry: Effects on Trust and Engagement With Care

OBJECTIVE

Patients' experiences of inpatient psychiatry have received limited empirical scrutiny. The authors examined patients' likelihood of experiencing institutional betrayal (harmful actions or inactions toward patients) at facilities with for-profit, nonprofit, or government ownership; patient-level characteristics associated with experiencing institutional betrayal; associations between betrayal and patients' trust in mental health providers; and associations between betrayal and patients' willingness to engage in care postdischarge.

METHODS

Former psychiatric inpatients (N=814 adults) responded to an online survey. Data were collected on patients' demographic characteristics; experiences of institutional betrayal; and the impact of psychiatric hospitalization on patients' trust in providers, willingness to engage in care, and attendance at 30-day follow-up visits. Participants' responses were linked to secondary data on facility ownership type.

RESULTS

Experiencing institutional betrayal was associated with less trust in mental health providers (25-percentage-point increase in reporting less trust, 95% CI=17-32), reduced willingness (by 45 percentage points, 95% CI=39-52) voluntarily undergo hospitalization, reduced willingness (by 30 percentage points, 95% CI=23-37) to report distressing thoughts to mental health providers, and lower probability of reporting attendance at a 30-day follow-up visit (11-percentage-point decrease, 95% CI=5-18). Participants treated at a for-profit facility were significantly more likely (by 14 percentage points) to report experiencing institutional betrayal than were those treated at a nonprofit facility (p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Institutional betrayal is one mechanism through which inpatient psychiatric facilities may cause iatrogenic harm, and the potential for betrayal was larger at for-profit facilities. Further research is needed to identify the determinants of institutional betrayal and strategies to support improvement in care quality.

Changes in institution for mental diseases (IMD) ownership status and insurance acceptance over time

State Medicaid programs are prohibited from using federal dollars to pay institutions for mental diseases (IMDs)-freestanding psychiatric facilities with more than 16 beds. Increasingly, regulatory mechanisms have made payment of treatment in these settings substantially more feasible. This study evaluates if changing financial incentives are associated with increases in for-profit ownership among IMD facilities relative to non-IMD facilities, as well as greater increases in Medicaid acceptance among for-profit IMD facilities relative to for-profit non-IMD facilities. We used data from the 2014-2020 National Mental Health Services Surveys and examined 11 945 facility-years. Relative to non-IMDs, the increase in for-profit ownership among IMDs was 6.6 percentage points greater. The largest proportional change in Medicaid acceptance occurred among for-profit IMD facilities relative to for-profit non-IMDs (18.5 percentage points). Existing research is mixed on the quality of inpatient and residential psychiatric care provided in for-profit vs nonprofit and public facilities, as well as in IMD relative to non-IMD facilities. As payment policy increasingly incentivizes for-profit facilities to enter the psychiatric care space, we should be mindful of the impact of these decisions on patient safety.

Patient-centered inpatient psychiatry is associated with outcomes, ownership, and national quality measures

Following discharge from inpatient psychiatry, patients experience elevated suicide risk, unplanned readmission, and lack of outpatient follow-up visits. These negative outcomes might relate to patient-centered care (PCC) experiences while hospitalized. We surveyed 739 former patients of inpatient psychiatric settings to understand the relationship between PCC and changes in patients' trust, willingness to engage in care, and self-reported 30-day follow-up visits. We also linked PCC measures to facility-level quality measures in the Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting program. Relative to patients discharged from facilities in the top quartile of PCC, those discharged from facilities in the bottom quartile were more likely to experience reduced trust (predicted probability [PP] = 0.77 vs 0.46; P < .001), reduced willingness to go to the hospital voluntarily (PP = 0.99 vs 0.01; P < .001), and a lower likelihood of a 30-day follow-up (PP = 0.71 vs 0.92; P < .001). PCC was lower among patients discharged from for-profits, was positively associated with facility-level quality measures of 7- and 30-day follow-up and medication continuation, and was inversely associated with restraint use. Findings underscore the need to introduce systematic measurement and improvement of PCC in this setting.

Complaints, Restraint, and Seclusion in Massachusetts Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities, 2008-2018

There has been limited research on the quality of inpatient psychiatry, yet policies to expand access have increased, such as the use of Medicaid Section 1115 waivers for treatment in "Institutions for Mental Disease" (IMD). Using data from public records requests, we evaluated complaints, restraint, and seclusion from inpatient psychiatric facilities in Massachusetts occurring from 2008 to 2018, and compared differences in the rates of these events by IMD status. There were 17,962 total complaints, with 48.9% related to safety and 19.9% related to abuse (sexual, physical, verbal), and 92,670 episodes of restraint and seclusion. On average, for every 30 census days in a given facility, restraint, and seclusion occurred 7.47 and 1.81 times, respectively, and a complaint was filed 0.94 times. IMDs had 47.8%, 68.3%, 276.9%, 284.8%, 183.6%, and 236.1% greater rates of restraint, seclusion, overall complaints, substantiated complaints, safety-related complaints, and abuse-related complaints, respectively, compared to non-IMDs. This is the first known study to describe complaints from United States inpatient psychiatric facilities. Policies should strengthen the implementation of patients' rights and patient-centeredness, as well as external critical-incident-reporting systems.

The impact of court-ordered psychiatric treatment on hospital length of stay: balancing legal and clinical concerns

PURPOSE

Psychiatric hospital length of stay (LOS) is not affected solely by socio-clinical factors but also by legal procedures. This study examined the associations between legal procedures and LOS.

METHODS

Data from 521 patients with psychiatric illnesses hospitalized over 2013-2015 were analyzed. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the predictors of longer (> 14 days) or prolonged (> 30) LOS with socio-clinical factors and legal procedures including court-ordered interventions (assisted outpatient treatment, medication over objection, and retention).

RESULTS

Longer LOS occurred in 246 patients and 99 had prolonged LOS. Legal procedures affected 57 patients, with 11 assisted outpatient treatments, 39 cases of medication over objection, and 16 retentions. Longer LOS was significantly associated with six factors including older age, unmarried status, non-Hispanic race, risk of violence, schizophrenia, and legal procedures. Legal procedures had the strongest association. Longer/prolonged LOS yielded qualitatively similar associations.

CONCLUSION

Among 521 psychiatric inpatients, approximately 11% were mandated to receive interventions/procedures by the courts. Court-ordered legal procedures were strongly associated with longer LOS. Mental health providers may consider legal procedures for patients at high treatment/medication noncompliance risk as early as patient admission to inpatient units to prevent, intervene or prepare for a longer or prolonged LOS.