Matthias Glöckner

Involuntary vs. voluntary hospital admission. A systematic literature review on outcome diversity.

This article systematically reviews the literature on the outcome of acute hospitalization for adult general psychiatric patients admitted involuntarily as compared to patients admitted voluntarily. Inclusion and exclusion criteria qualified 41 out of 3,227 references found in Medline and PSYNDEXplus literature searches for this review. The authors independently rated these articles on six pre-defined indicators of research quality, carried out statistical comparisons ex-post facto where not reported, and computed for each adequate result the effect size index d for the comparison of means, and the Phi- or contingency coefficient for cross-tabulated data. Methodological quality of the studies, coming mostly from North American and European countries, showed significant variation and was higher concerning service-related than clinical or subjective outcomes. Main deficits appeared in sample size estimation, lack of clear follow-up time-points, and the absence of standardized instruments used to assess clinical outcomes. Length of stay, readmission risk, and risk of involuntary readmission were at least equal or greater for involuntary patients. Involuntary patients showed no increased mortality, but did have higher suicide rates than voluntary patients. Further, involuntary patients demonstrated lower levels of social functioning, and equal levels of general psychopathology and treatment compliance; they were more dissatisfied with treatment and more frequently felt that hospitalization was not justified. Future methodologically-sound studies exploring this topic should focus on patient populations not represented here. Further research should also clarify if the legal admission status is sufficiently valid for differentiating the outcome of acute hospitalization.

A comparison of psychiatric day hospitals in five European countries: implications of their diversity for day hospital research.

Abstract.Objective:As the use of “day hospitals” increases, conceptual models of these services are changing dramatically across Europe. Therefore, the need arises for mental health services research to assess this process cross-nationally in a standardised and systematic way. Such research approaches should seek to maximise the generalisability of results from high-quality (e. g. randomised controlled) single- or multi-site trials assessing specific models of day hospital care.Method:Using a self-developed structured questionnaire, the European Day Hospital Evaluation (EDEN) study group carried out national surveys of the characteristics of day hospitals for general psychiatric patients in Germany, England, Poland, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic, during the period 2001–2002.Results:Response rates varied from 52 to 91%. Findings show that day hospitals have no consistent profile of structural and procedural features. Similarities across countries focus on three main issues: on average, consideration of concepts oriented toward providing acute treatment are equivalent; disorders associated with disabled functioning in everyday life, high risk of somatic complications, and need for behaviour control are excluded to a comparable degree; and some core therapeutic activities are consistent with the main approaches of social psychiatry. Identified according to self-rated conceptions and extended with data from individual hospital’s statistics on the clientele in 2000, three clusters of limited selectivity subdivide the services. One category focuses mainly on rehabilitative tasks; two categories are oriented toward providing acute treatment as an alternative to inpatient care, but combine this either with rehabilitative tasks or with equal additional functions of shortening inpatient treatment and providing psychotherapy. The distribution of services across these three clusters varies significantly in the five European countries.Conclusion:Future day hospital studies should always clarify the type of services being assessed. To fully consider the impact of their results, the current national and international health policy environment of these services should be taken into account. Such surveys require enhanced methodology, however, in order to identify clear, distinct categories of services characterised by overlapping programme functions, and to increase the generalisability of valid results from single- or multi-site trials.

The role of acute day hospital treatment for mental health care: Research context and practical problems of carrying out the international multi-centre EDEN-study

In many European countries dramatic changes in mental health care are an ongoing process [5, 15, 18, 38, 43]. The realisation of community-oriented psychiatric care principles differs significantly between the individual countries. Although needs-orientation, increasing professional quality of care in spite of cost-containment, individualisation, social integration and improvement of patients’ quality of life are generally accepted principles of mental health care, their transformation to the practice of care and health services is highly heterogeneous [4, 24]. Care- or service-planning- and treatment-standards in various sectors of mental health service systems are not established in a cross-nationally homogeneous way.