联合危机计划对精神科强制治疗使用情况的影响:单盲随机对照试验

Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsory treatment in psychiatry: single blind randomised controlled trial.

作者信息

Henderson Claire, Flood Chris, Leese Morven, Thornicroft Graham, Sutherby Kim, Szmukler George

机构信息

Health Services Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London SE5 8AF.

出版信息

BMJ. 2004 Jul 17;329(7458):136. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38155.585046.63. Epub 2004 Jul 7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a form of advance agreement for people with severe mental illness can reduce the use of inpatient services and compulsory admission or treatment.

DESIGN

Single blind randomised controlled trial, with randomisation of individual patients. The investigator was blind to allocation.

SETTING

Eight community mental health teams in southern England.

PARTICIPANTS

160 people with an operational diagnosis of psychotic illness or non-psychotic bipolar disorder who had experienced a hospital admission within the previous two years.

INTERVENTION

The joint crisis plan was formulated by the patient, care coordinator, psychiatrist, and project worker and contained contact information, details of mental and physical illnesses, treatments, indicators for relapse, and advance statements of preferences for care in the event of future relapse.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Admission to hospital, bed days, and use of the Mental Health Act over 15 month follow up.

RESULTS

Use of the Mental Health Act was significantly reduced for the intervention group, 13% (10/80) of whom experienced compulsory admission or treatment compared with 27% (21/80) of the control group (risk ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.95, P = 0.028). As a consequence, the mean number of days of detention (days spent as an inpatient while under a section of the Mental Health Act) for the whole intervention group was 14 compared with 31 for the control group (difference 16, 0 to 36, P = 0.04). For those admitted under a section of the Mental Health Act, the number of days of detention was similar in the two groups (means 114 and 117, difference 3, -61 to 67, P = 0.98). The intervention group had fewer admissions (risk ratio 0.69, 0.45 to 1.04, P = 0.07). There was no evidence for differences in bed days (total number of days spent as an inpatient) (means 32 and 36, difference 4, -18 to 26, P = 0.15 for the whole sample; means 107 and 83, difference -24, -72 to 24, P = 0.39 for those admitted).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of joint crisis plans reduced compulsory admissions and treatment in patients with severe mental illness. The reduction in overall admission was less. This is the first structured clinical intervention that seems to reduce compulsory admission and treatment in mental health services.

摘要

目的

调查针对重症精神疾病患者的一种预先协议形式是否能减少住院服务的使用以及强制入院或治疗的情况。

设计

单盲随机对照试验,对个体患者进行随机分组。研究者对分组情况不知情。

地点

英格兰南部的八个社区精神卫生团队。

参与者

160名经诊断患有精神病性疾病或非精神病性双相情感障碍且在过去两年内有过住院经历的患者。

干预措施

联合危机计划由患者、护理协调员、精神科医生和项目工作人员共同制定,包含联系信息、精神和身体疾病详情、治疗方法、复发指标以及未来复发时护理偏好的预先声明。

主要观察指标

在15个月的随访期内的住院情况、住院天数以及《精神健康法》的使用情况。

结果

干预组对《精神健康法》的使用显著减少,干预组中有13%(10/80)的患者经历了强制入院或治疗,而对照组为27%(21/80)(风险比0.48,95%置信区间0.24至0.95,P = 0.028)。因此,整个干预组的平均拘留天数(根据《精神健康法》条款作为住院患者的天数)为14天,而对照组为31天(差值16,0至36,P = 0.04)。对于根据《精神健康法》条款入院的患者,两组的拘留天数相似(均值分别为114和117,差值3,-61至67,P = 0.98)。干预组的入院次数较少(风险比0.69,0.45至1.04,P = 0.07)。没有证据表明住院天数(作为住院患者的总天数)存在差异(整个样本的均值分别为32和36,差值4,-18至26,P = 0.15;入院患者的均值分别为107和83,差值-24,-72至24,P = 0.39)。

结论

联合危机计划的使用减少了重症精神疾病患者的强制入院和治疗情况。总体入院次数的减少幅度较小。这是首个似乎能减少精神卫生服务中强制入院和治疗情况的结构化临床干预措施。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索