Hensen Mariëtte J, de Mooij Liselotte D, Theunissen Jan, Dekker Jack, Willemsen Michael, Zoeteman Jeroen, Peen Jaap, de Wit Matty A S
Public Health Service Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology, Health Promotion, and Care Innovation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Arkin Mental Health Care, Research department, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;16:84. doi: 10.1186/s12888-016-0787-8.
Patients experiencing severe mental illnesses (SMI) need continuing support and remain vulnerable in many domains. Crisis interventions and compulsory admissions are common, causing a huge burden on police, health workers, the community and patients. The aim of this retrospective case-file study is to determine profiles of SMI-patients and their pathways through care among those experiencing multiple public crisis events.
Data from a larger study of 323 SMI-patients in Amsterdam were used. These data were linked to data of the public mental health care (PMHC) in order to identify persons that experienced crisis interventions (CI's) between January 2004 and November 2012. The cut-off point for inclusion in the study population was set on three CI's, resulting in a group of 47 SMI-patients. PMHC and mental health care (MHC) data were linked in order to identify profiles in patterns of care. Qualitative content analysis was used to gather and analyze chronological timelines.
Three profiles were identified: SMI-patients with CI's during continuous MHC, SMI-patients with CI's after discharge and SMI-patients with CI's during unstable MHC. For each profile events prior to, during and after a CI were identified.
PMHC and MHC can possibly identify cases with a high risk of CI's and predict these events based on the results of this study. CI's seem inevitable for a group of SMI-patients in care but they do not only require acute psychiatric care. The collaboration between MHC, PMHC and police could be further developed in a quick and effective triage in order to tackle the complexity of problems of the SMI-patients.
患有严重精神疾病(SMI)的患者需要持续的支持,并且在许多方面仍然很脆弱。危机干预和强制入院很常见,给警察、医护人员、社区和患者带来了巨大负担。这项回顾性病例档案研究的目的是确定患有严重精神疾病的患者的特征以及他们在经历多次公共危机事件时的就医途径。
使用了来自阿姆斯特丹对323名患有严重精神疾病患者的一项更大规模研究的数据。这些数据与公共精神卫生保健(PMHC)的数据相链接,以识别在2004年1月至2012年11月期间经历过危机干预(CI)的人员。纳入研究人群的临界点设定为三次危机干预,从而形成了一组47名患有严重精神疾病的患者。将公共精神卫生保健和精神卫生保健(MHC)数据相链接,以确定护理模式中的特征。采用定性内容分析法来收集和分析按时间顺序排列的时间线。
确定了三种特征:在持续的精神卫生保健期间经历危机干预的患有严重精神疾病的患者、出院后经历危机干预的患有严重精神疾病的患者以及在不稳定的精神卫生保健期间经历危机干预的患有严重精神疾病的患者。针对每种特征,确定了危机干预之前、期间和之后的事件。
公共精神卫生保健和精神卫生保健可能能够识别出有高危机干预风险的病例,并根据本研究结果预测这些事件。对于接受护理的一组患有严重精神疾病的患者来说,危机干预似乎是不可避免的,但他们不仅需要急性精神科护理。精神卫生保健、公共精神卫生保健和警方之间的合作可以在快速有效的分诊方面得到进一步发展,以应对患有严重精神疾病患者问题的复杂性。