Goullieux E, Loas G
6e Secteur de Psychiatrie, CHR d'Abbeville, 43, rue de l'Isle, 80142 Abbeville.
Encephale. 2003 May-Jun;29(3 Pt 1):223-31.
The process of disinstitutionalization combined with the economic reality is responsible for the great upheaval in taking care of psychiatric patients. The repercussions are worldwide, national, and local concerning the Philippe Pinel Psychiatric Hospital (Amiens, Somme) place of this work. So the psychiatrists of this institution have to do with the following datas: a reduction of the admissions between 1991 et 1998 (around 1,5%) and a provided reduction of the hospitalization capacities upper to 40% for the following two years! Then the connection with these two figures requires the development of new therapeutic strategies, with the existing means. In this peculiar context, a study has been carried on over 2 years: 49 psychiatric patients who benefited from a brief hospitalization (less than 48 hours) have been followed up. The interest proceeds from the high frequency of the type of clinical situation which concerns 12,5% of the admissions in the studied psychiatric department. In the same time, a pilot group of 49 patients has been drawn lots among all the admissions during the same time: patients who benefited from a more traditional hospitalization (about twelve days), with strictly a same psychiatric diagnosis as in the first group, using the ICD 10 classification. The emphasis was focussed on the patient's psychiatric curing process into the 2 groups; we have compared the item rehospitalizations in a psychiatric hospital (through the number of rehospitalization, the number of days of rehospitalization, and the necessity - or not - of a rehospitalization) with the object of estimating the benefit, the inefficiency, or even the negligence of proposing a brief hospitalization. We have also studied socio-environmental datas, antecedents and effective psychiatric follow-up into the two groups. Concerning the diagnosis, mental disorders related to alcohol abuse (F10) are the most frequent (49%) into the group brief hospitalization , which diverges from the usual results taking account hospitalizations in psychiatric services. Then we have found personality disorders (14,3%), schizophrenia (12%), adaptation disorders (10,2%), anxiety (8,2%) and opiated abuse (4,3%). By that very fact, the pilot group allows exactly the same diagnosis. There's no significant difference concerning number of hospitalizations or number of days of rehospitalization; there is even a tendency in favour of patients who have been hospitalized less than 2 days: an other hospitalization is not as frequent as in the pilot group, without any exacerbation of their pathology (no less sight of patients, same number of death). It's important to emphasize that this benefit isn't related to less severe pathology for the first group: there can be a comparison between psychiatric antecedents and seniority of mental troubles. By another way, socio-environmental datas (age, sex, social and family positions) are homogenous. Lastly, circumstances of the hospitalization - inclusion between the groups are similar: same origin of the patients, who have required themselves their admission (it means the knowledge of the psychiatric hospital, distinctly one or more previous hospitalizations). The contacts with the entourage of the patients have been managed in the same way with the same results, and medical follow-up after having left hospital were identical. So we come to the conclusion that in spite of the apparent slight of this strategy, there can be a comparison between this kind of aid and a more traditional hospitalization, in many clinical situations, all the more when the emphasis is laid on the patients psychiatric curing process. Consequently a brief hospitalization can be considered as a possible therapeutic strategy. Two facts command attention now: we must clearly define the type of patients who have really benefited of this brief hospitalization, with the object of being able to plan this strategy. By another way, it seems that a brief hospitalization, just like any hospitalization, is one part of our patients curing process for the two groups. Therefore, the choice of a psychiatric hospitalization becomes a debatable point, through the treatment of a psychiatric emergency.
去机构化进程与经济现实相结合,是造成精神病患者护理领域巨大动荡的原因。其影响涉及全球、国家和地方层面,与这项工作所在的菲利普·皮内尔精神病院(亚眠,索姆省)相关。因此,该机构的精神科医生必须面对以下数据:1991年至1998年间入院人数减少(约1.5%),且预计未来两年住院床位将减少40%以上!那么,结合这两个数据,就需要利用现有资源制定新的治疗策略。在这种特殊背景下,我们进行了一项为期两年的研究:对49名接受短期住院治疗(少于48小时)的精神病患者进行了跟踪随访。之所以关注这一类型的临床情况,是因为其在研究的精神科病房入院患者中占比达12.5%。与此同时,在同一时期的所有入院患者中随机抽取了49名患者作为试点组:这些患者接受了更传统的住院治疗(约12天),与第一组患者的精神科诊断完全相同,采用国际疾病分类第10版(ICD - 10)进行分类。研究重点集中在两组患者的精神疾病治愈过程;我们比较了两组患者再次入住精神病院的情况(通过再次住院的次数、再次住院的天数以及是否需要再次住院),目的是评估短期住院治疗的益处、无效性甚至是否存在疏忽。我们还研究了两组患者的社会环境数据、病史以及实际的精神科随访情况。关于诊断,在短期住院组中,与酒精滥用相关的精神障碍(F10)最为常见(49%),这与精神科服务中通常的住院治疗结果有所不同。此外,我们还发现了人格障碍(14.3%)、精神分裂症(12%)、适应障碍(10.2%)、焦虑症(8.2%)和阿片类药物滥用(4.3%)。事实上,试点组的诊断与之一致。在住院次数或再次住院天数方面没有显著差异;甚至有迹象表明,住院少于2天的患者情况更好:再次住院的频率低于试点组,且其病情没有加重(患者关注度未降低,死亡人数相同)。需要强调的是,这种益处并非源于第一组患者病情较轻:两组患者的精神病史和精神问题持续时间可以进行比较。另一方面,社会环境数据(年龄、性别、社会和家庭地位)是相似的。最后一点,两组患者的住院情况——纳入标准相似:患者来源相同,均为主动要求入院(这意味着他们了解精神病院,且有过一次或多次之前的住院经历)。与患者家属的沟通方式相同,结果也相同;出院后的医疗随访也一样。因此,我们得出结论,尽管这种策略看似微不足道,但在许多临床情况下,尤其是当重点关注患者的精神疾病治愈过程时,这种治疗方式与更传统的住院治疗相比是可行的。因此,短期住院可以被视为一种可能的治疗策略。现在有两个事实值得关注:我们必须明确界定真正从短期住院治疗中受益的患者类型,以便能够规划这一策略。另一方面,似乎短期住院,就像任何住院治疗一样,是两组患者治愈过程的一部分。因此,通过处理精神科急诊,精神病住院治疗的选择成为一个有争议的问题。