Effects of the CMS' Public Reporting Program for Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities on Targeted and Nontargeted Safety: Differences Between For-Profits and Nonprofits

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.

A systematic review of interventions to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings

Mechanical restraint is a commonly used restrictive practice worldwide, although reducing its use is an international priority. Interventions to reduce mechanical restraint are needed if reducing mechanical restraint is to succeed. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to examine evaluated evidence-based interventions that seek to reduce the incidence of and/or time in mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings. The JBI framework was used to guide this systematic review. The search strategy included peer-reviewed primary research literature published between 1999 and 2023. Two authors independently conducted the systematic search, selection process and data extraction process. Forty-one studies were included in this review. Using content analysis, we grouped interventions into four categories: (I) calm-down methods, (II) staff resources, (III) legal and policy changes and (IV) changing staff culture. Interventions to reduce mechanical restraint in adult mental health inpatient settings have shown some promise. Evidence suggests that a range of interventions can reduce the incidence of and/or time in mechanical restraint. However, controlled trials were lacking and consensus was lacking across studies. Furthermore, specific findings varied widely, and reporting was inconsistent, hampering the development of interventions for this issue. Further research is needed to strengthen the evidence base for reducing mechanical restraint in mental health inpatient settings.

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 hospital price and quality transparency tools on healthcare spending: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Global spending on health was continuing to rise over the past 20 years. To reduce the growth rates, alleviate information asymmetry, and improve the efficiency of healthcare markets, global health systems have initiated price and quality transparency tools in the hospital industry in the last two decades. OBJECTIVE : The objective of this review is to synthesize whether, to what extent, and how hospital price and quality transparency tools affected 1) the price of healthcare procedures and services, 2) the payments of consumers, and 3) the premium of health insurance plans bonding with hospital networks.

METHODS

A literature search of EMBASE, Web of Science, Econlit, Scopus, Pubmed, CINAHL, and PsychINFO was conducted, from inception to Oct 31, 2021. Reference lists and tracked citations of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Study characteristics were extracted, and included studies were scored through a risk of bias assessment framework. This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO with registration No. CRD42022319070.

RESULTS

Of 2157 records identified, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Near 40 percent of studies focused on hospital quality transparency tools, and more than 90 percent of studies were from the US. Hospital price transparency reduced the price of laboratory and imaging tests except for office-visit services. Hospital quality transparency declined the level or growth rates of healthcare spending, while it adversely and significantly raised the price of healthcare services and consumers' payment in higher-ranked or rated facilities, which was referred to as the reputation premium in the healthcare industry. Hospital quality transparency not only leveraged private insurers bonding with a higher-rated hospital network to increase premiums, but also induced their anticipated pricing behaviors.

CONCLUSION

Hospital price and quality transparency was not effective as expected. Future research should explore the understudied consequences of hospital quality transparency programs, such as the reputation/rating premium and its policy intervention.

Rural-Urban Disparities in Quality of Inpatient Psychiatric Care

OBJECTIVE

Rural residents have higher rates of serious mental illness than urban residents, but little is known about the quality of inpatient psychiatric care available to them locally or how quality may have changed in response to federal initiatives. This study aimed to examine differences and changes in the quality of inpatient psychiatric care in rural and urban hospitals.

METHODS

This national retrospective study of 1,644 facilities examined facility-level annual quality-of-care data from the Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting program, 2015-2019. Facility location was categorized as urban, large rural, or small or isolated rural on the basis of zip code-level rural-urban commuting area codes. Generalized regression models were used to assess rural-urban differences in care quality (five continuity-of-care and two patient experience measures) and changes over time.

RESULTS

Rural inpatient psychiatric units performed better than urban units in nearly all domains. Improvements in quality of care (excluding follow-up care) were similar in rural and urban units. Rates of 30- and 7-day postdischarge follow-up care decreased in all hospitals but faster in rural units. Timely transmission of transition records was more frequent in small or isolated rural versus urban units (mean marginal difference=22.5, 95% CI=6.3-38.8). Physical restraint or seclusion use was less likely in rural than in urban units (OR=0.6, 95% CI=0.5-0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Rural psychiatric units had better care quality at baseline (better follow-up care, better timely transmission of transition records, and lower rates of physical restraint use) than urban units, but during 2015-2019, follow-up care performance decreased overall and more in rural than urban units.

Former Inpatient Psychiatric Patients' Past Experiences With Traditional Frontline Staff and Their Thoughts on the Benefits of Peers as Part of Frontline Staff

Little is known about how integrating peers into frontline staff might improve the quality of inpatient psychiatric care. In the current study, we interviewed 18 former adult patients of inpatient psychiatric facilities using semi-structured interviews. We first asked about positive and negative past experiences with traditional staff. We then asked participants to share their opinions on the potential benefits of peers as part of frontline staff. We identified themes through a joint inductive and deductive approach. Participants reported past positive experiences with traditional staff as being (a) personable and caring, (b) validating feelings and experiences, (c) de-escalating, and (d) providing agency. Past negative experiences included (a) not sharing information, (b) being inattentive, (c) not providing agency, (d) being dehumanizing/disrespectful, (e) incompetency, (f) escalating situations, and (g) being apathetic. Participants believed that peers as part of frontline staff could champion emotional needs in humanizing and nonjudgmental ways, help navigate the system, and disrupt power imbalances between staff and patients. Further research is needed to understand financial, organizational, and cultural barriers to integrating peers into frontline staff. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 60(3), 15-22.].