Terje Øiesvold

Diagnosing comorbidity in psychiatric hospital: challenging the validity of administrative registers.

BackgroundThis study will explore the validity of psychiatric diagnoses in administrative registers with special emphasis on comorbid anxiety and substance use disorders.MethodsAll new patients admitted to psychiatric hospital in northern Norway during one year were asked to participate. Of 477 patients found eligible, 272 gave their informed consent. 250 patients (52%) with hospital diagnoses comprised the study sample. Expert diagnoses were given on the basis of a structured diagnostic interview (M.I.N.I.PLUS) together with retrospective checking of the records. The hospital diagnoses were blind to the expert. The agreement between the expert’s and the clinicians’ diagnoses was estimated using Cohen’s kappa statistics.ResultsThe expert gave a mean of 3.4 diagnoses per patient, the clinicians gave 1.4. The agreement ranged from poor to good (schizophrenia). For anxiety disorders (F40-41) the agreement is poor (kappa = 0.12). While the expert gave an anxiety disorder diagnosis to 122 patients, the clinicians only gave it to 17. The agreement is fair concerning substance use disorders (F10-19) (kappa = 0.27). Only two out of 76 patients with concurrent anxiety and substance use disorders were identified by the clinicians.ConclusionsThe validity of administrative registers in psychiatry seems dubious for research purposes and even for administrative and clinical purposes. The diagnostic process in the clinic should be more structured and treatment guidelines should include comorbidity.

Suicidality related to first-time admissions to psychiatric hospital

BackgroundThe epidemiology of suicidality shows considerable variation across sites. However, one of the strongest predictors of suicide is a suicidal attempt. Knowledge of the epidemiology of suicidal ideas and attempts in the general population as well as in the health care system is of importance for designing preventive strategies. In this study, we will explore the role of the psychiatric hospital in suicide prevention by investigating treated incidence of suicidal ideation and attempt, and further, discern whether sociodemographic, clinical and service utilization factors differ between these two groups at admission.MethodsThe study was a prospective cohort study on treated incidence in a 1-year period and 12-month follow-up. The two psychiatric hospitals in northern Norway, serving a population of about 500,000 people, participated in the study. A total of 676 first-time admissions were retrospectively checked for suicidality at the time of admission. A study sample of 168 patients was found eligible for logistic regression analysis to elucidate the risk profiles of suicidal ideators versus suicidal attempters. GAF, HoNOS and SCL-90-R were used to assess symptomatology at baseline.Results52.2% of all patients admitted had suicidal ideas at admission and 19.7% had attempted suicide. In the study sample, there were no differences in risk profile between the two groups with regard to sociodemographic and clinical factors. Males who had made a suicide attempt were less likely to have been in contact with an out-patient clinic before the attempt. The rating scales not measuring suicidality directly showed no differences in symptomatology.ConclusionThe findings provide evidence for the importance of the psychiatric hospital in suicide prevention. About half of the admissions were related to suicidality and the similar risk profiles found in suicidal ideators and suicidal attempters indicate that it is the ideators who mostly need treatment that get admitted to the hospital, and should be evaluated and treated with equal concern as those who have attempted suicide.

A comparative study of diagnostic practice in psychiatry in Northern Norway and Northwest Russia.

BackgroundThe co-operation between psychiatrists in Norway and Russia is increasing. The object of this study was to find out whether there were differences in diagnostic practice of psychiatrists in both countries, to look at the nature of the differences and to examine whether these differences affected diagnostic quality.MethodThirty medical doctors working at psychiatric hospitals in both countries diagnosed 12 clinical case vignettes selected from a wide spectre of psychiatric disorders.ResultsThe Russian clinicians used a larger range of diagnoses than the Norwegians. The Russians tended to diagnose schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders in cases that presented psychotic syndromes, and somatoform disorders in cases that presented agoraphobia. The Norwegians tended to evaluate affective aspects in preference to psychotic symptoms in the case of schizoaffective disorder and overestimate the degree of depression. In general, the Russians had lower total score of correct answers than the Norwegians.ConclusionIn spite of the limitations due to minor differences in the data collection phase in the two countries, the study clearly demonstrates differences in diagnostic practice between the countries.

Between health care and social security--psychiatric patients and the disability pension system in Norway and Russia.

BackgroundThe official statistics of persons with mental disorders who are granted disability pension (DP) in Russia and Norway indicate large differences between the countries.MethodsThis qualitative explorative hypothesis-generating study is based on text analysis of the laws, regulations and guidelines, and qualitative interviews of informants representing all the organisational elements of the DP systems in both countries.ResultsThe DP application process is initiated much later in Norway than in Russia, where a 3 year occupational rehabilitation and adequate treatment is mandatory before DP is granted. In Russia, two instances are responsible for preparing of the medical certification for DP, a patients medical doctor (PD) and a clinical expert commission (CEC) while there is one in Norway (PD). In Russia, the Bureau of Medical-Social Expertise is responsible for evaluation and granting of DP. In Norway, the local social insurance offices (SIO) are responsible for the DP application. Decisions are taken collectively in Russia, while the Norwegian PD and SIO officer often take decisions alone. In Russia, the medical criterion is the decisive one, while rehabilitation and treatment criteria are given priority in Norway. The size of the DP in Norway is enough to cover of subsistences expenditure, while the Russian DP is less than the level required for minimum subsistence.ConclusionThere were noteworthy differences in the time frame, organisation model and process leading to a DP in the two countries. These differences may explain why so few patients with less severe mental disorders receive a DP in Russia. This fact, in combination with the size of the DP, may hamper reforms of the mental health care system in Russia.

Outpatient clinics treating substance use disorders in Northwest Russia and Northern Norway: a descriptive comparative study

ABSTRACT Both in Norway and Russia a considerable portion of the population have substance use disorders. However, the knowledge about outpatient services treating substance use disorders in Norway and Russia is limited. This study will describe and compare outpatient clinics treating substance use disorders in Arkhangelsk in Northwest Russia and in Bodø and Tromsø in Northern Norway on availability, accessibility and treated prevalence (patients treated in one year). The managers (N=3) of the outpatient clinics (N=3) were interviewed with the European Service Mapping Schedule (ESMS) and the International Classification of Mental Health Care (ICMHC). The interviews were supplemented by e-mail and phone calls. The treatment in Arkhangelsk was mainly biologically oriented (medical), while a greater variety of methods was available in Bodø and Tromsø. The clinic in Russia was a drop-in clinic, while in Norway patients needed a referral to get an appointment in the clinic. Patients treated in Arkhangelsk (treated prevalence) was 1662, while in Bodø it was 233 and in Tromsø 220. The present study revealed great differences between the clinics involved in accessibility, availability and treated prevalence. Cultural traditions and budgeting of the mental health care system could explain some of the findings.