Bonsack C, Pfister T, Conus P
Département Universitaire de Psychiatrie Adulte, Site de Cery, 1008 Prilly, Lausanne, Suisse.
Encephale. 2006 Oct;32(5 Pt 1):679-85. doi: 10.1016/s0013-7006(06)76219-4.
First hospitalisation for a psychotic episode causes intense distress to patients and families, but offers an opportunity to make a diagnosis and start treatment. However, linkage to outpatient psychiatric care remains a notoriously difficult step for young psychotic patients, who frequently interrupt treatment after hospitalisation. Persistence of symptoms, and untreated psychosis may therefore remain a problem despite hospitalisation and proper diagnosis. With persisting psychotic symptoms, numerous complications may arise: breakdown in relationships, loss of family and social support, loss of employment or study interruption, denial of disease, depression, suicide, substance abuse and violence. Understanding mechanisms that might promote linkage to outpatient psychiatric care is therefore a critical issue, especially in early intervention in psychotic disorders.
To study which factors hinder or promote linkage of young psychotic patients to outpatient psychiatric care after a first hospitalisation, in the absence of a vertically integrated program for early psychosis. Method. File audit study of all patients aged 18 to 30 who were admitted for the first time to the psychiatric University Hospital of Lausanne in the year 2000. For statistical analysis, chi2 tests were used for categorical variables and t-test for dimensional variables; p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
230 patients aged 18 to 30 were admitted to the Lausanne University psychiatric hospital for the first time during the year 2000, 52 of them with a diagnosis of psychosis (23%). Patients with psychosis were mostly male (83%) when compared with non-psychosis patients (49%). Furthermore, they had (1) 10 days longer mean duration of stay (24 vs 14 days), (2) a higher rate of compulsory admissions (53% vs 22%) and (3) were more often hospitalised by a psychiatrist rather than by a general practitioner (83% vs 53%). Other socio-demographic and clinical features at admission were similar in the two groups. Among the 52 psychotic patients, 10 did not stay in the catchment area for subsequent treatment. Among the 42 psychotic patients who remained in the catchment area after discharge, 20 (48%) did not attend the scheduled or rescheduled outpatient appointment. None of the socio demographic characteristics were associated with attendance to outpatient appointments. On the other hand, voluntary admission and suicidal ideation before admission were significantly related to attending the initial appointment. Moreover, some elements of treatment seemed to be associated with higher likelihood to attend outpatient treatment: (1) provision of information to the patient regarding diagnosis, (2) discussion about the treatment plan between in- and outpatient staff, (3) involvement of outpatient team during hospitalisation, and (4) elaboration of concrete strategies to face basic needs, organise daily activities or education and reach for help in case of need.
As in other studies, half of the patients admitted for a first psychotic episode failed to link to outpatient psychiatric care. Our study suggests that treatment rather than patient's characteristics play a critical role in this phenomenon. Development of a partnership and involvement of patients in the decision process, provision of good information regarding the illness, clear definition of the treatment plan, development of concrete strategies to cope with the illness and its potential complications, and involvement of the outpatient treating team already during hospitalisation, all came out as critical strategies to facilitate adherence to outpatient care. While the current rate of disengagement after admission is highly concerning, our finding are encouraging since they constitute strategies that can easily be implemented. An open approach to psychosis, the development of partnership with patients and a better coordination between inpatient and outpatient teams should therefore be among the targets of early intervention programs. These observations might help setting up priorities when conceptualising new programs and facilitate the implementation of services that facilitate engagement of patients in treatment during the critical initial phase of psychotic disorders.
首次因精神病发作住院会给患者及其家人带来极大痛苦,但也为做出诊断并开始治疗提供了契机。然而,对于年轻的精神病患者而言,与门诊精神科护理的衔接仍是极为困难的一步,他们常常在住院后中断治疗。因此,尽管已经住院并得到了正确诊断,但症状的持续存在以及未得到治疗的精神病可能仍然是个问题。随着精神病症状的持续,可能会出现许多并发症:人际关系破裂、家庭和社会支持丧失、失业或学业中断、否认患病、抑郁、自杀、药物滥用以及暴力行为。所以,了解可能促进与门诊精神科护理衔接的机制是一个关键问题,尤其是在精神病障碍的早期干预中。
研究在没有针对早期精神病的垂直整合项目的情况下,哪些因素会阻碍或促进年轻精神病患者首次住院后与门诊精神科护理的衔接。方法:对2000年首次入住洛桑大学精神病医院的所有18至30岁患者进行档案审核研究。对于统计分析,分类变量使用卡方检验,维度变量使用t检验;p<0.05被视为具有统计学意义。
2000年期间,230名18至30岁的患者首次入住洛桑大学精神病医院,其中52人被诊断为精神病(23%)。与非精神病患者(49%)相比,患有精神病的患者大多为男性(83%)。此外,他们(1)平均住院时间长10天(24天对14天),(2)强制入院率更高(53%对22%),(3)由精神科医生而非全科医生收治的情况更常见(83%对53%)。两组入院时的其他社会人口统计学和临床特征相似。在52名精神病患者中,有10人未留在后续治疗的服务区域内。在出院后仍留在服务区域的42名精神病患者中,20人(48%)未参加预定或重新安排的门诊预约。没有任何社会人口统计学特征与参加门诊预约相关。另一方面,自愿入院和入院前的自杀意念与参加首次预约显著相关。此外,一些治疗因素似乎与更高的门诊治疗参与可能性相关:(1)向患者提供有关诊断的信息,(2)住院和门诊工作人员之间讨论治疗计划,(3)门诊团队在住院期间的参与,以及(4)制定应对基本需求、安排日常活动或教育以及在需要时寻求帮助的具体策略。
与其他研究一样,首次因精神病发作住院的患者中有一半未能与门诊精神科护理衔接。我们的研究表明,在这一现象中起关键作用的是治疗而非患者特征。建立伙伴关系并让患者参与决策过程、提供有关疾病的良好信息、明确治疗计划的定义、制定应对疾病及其潜在并发症的具体策略,以及门诊治疗团队在住院期间就参与进来,所有这些都被证明是促进坚持门诊护理的关键策略。虽然目前入院后脱离治疗的比例令人高度担忧,但我们的研究结果令人鼓舞,因为它们构成了易于实施的策略。因此,对精神病采取开放的态度、与患者建立伙伴关系以及改善住院和门诊团队之间的协调,应该成为早期干预项目的目标。这些观察结果可能有助于在构思新项目时确定优先事项,并促进实施有助于患者在精神病障碍关键的初始阶段参与治疗的服务。