Perspectives of Frequent Users of Emergency Departments on a Case Management Intervention: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Effective management of frequent users of emergency departments (FUED) remains challenging. Case management (CM) has shown to improve patient quality of life while reducing ED visits and associated costs. However, little data is available on FUED's perception of CM outside of North America to further improve CM implementation. OBJECTIVES: Explore the FUED's perspectives about CM in Switzerland. DESIGN, SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews eliciting FUED's experiences of CM were conducted among 20 participants (75% female; mean age = 40.6, SD = 12.8) across 6 hospital ED. OUTCOMES MEASURES & ANALYSIS: Inductive content analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Most participants were satisfied with the CM program. In particular, FUEDs identified the working relationship with the case manager (cm) as key for positive outcomes, and also valued the holistic evaluation of their needs and resources. Overall, patients reported increased motivation and health literacy, as well as facilitated interactions within the healthcare system. Conversely, a small number of participants reported negative views on CM (ie, stigmatization, lack of concrete outcomes). Barriers identified were cm's lack of time, COVID-19's negative impact on CM organization, as well as lack of clarity on the objectives of CM. FUED perceived CM as useful, in particular establishing a working relationship with the cm. Our results suggest that CM can be further improved by (1) professionals remaining non-judgmental toward FUED, (2) making sure the aims and objectives of the CM are understood by the participants, and (3) allowing more time for the cm to carry out their work.

COVID-19 Related Fears of Patients Admitted to a Psychiatric Emergency Department during and Post-Lockdown in Switzerland: Preliminary Findings to Look Ahead for Tailored Preventive Mental Health Strategies.

Background and Objectives: While the impact on mental health of 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) has been extensively documented, little is known about its influence on subjective fears. Here, we investigate the COVID-19 impact and its related restrictions on fears of patients admitted to a psychiatric Emergency Department (ED) during and post-lockdown. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study on 1477 consultations at the psychiatric ED of the University Hospital of Geneva (HUG) was performed using a mixed-methods analysis. The first analysis section was qualitative, aiming to explore the type of fears, while the second section statistically compared fears (i) during lockdown (16 March 2020-10 May 2020) and (ii) post-lockdown (11 May 2020-5 July 2020). Fears were also explored among different patient-age sub-groups. Results: 334 patients expressed one/more fears. Both in lockdown and post-lockdown, fears mostly pertained to "containment measures" (isolation, loneliness). When compared lockdown vs. post-lockdown, fears about "work status" (deteriorating, losing work) prevailed in lockdown (p = 0.029) while "hopelessness" (powerless feeling, inability to find solutions) in post-lockdown (p = 0.001). "Self around COVID-19" (dying, getting sick) fear was relatively more frequent in youth (p = 0.039), while "hopelessness" in the elderly (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Collectively, these findings highlight that lockdown/post-lockdown periods generated temporally and demographically distinct COVID-19 related fears patterns, with special regard to youth and elderly, two particularly vulnerable populations when faced with sudden and unexpected dramatic events. For this reason, the particular ED "front-line service" status makes it a privileged observatory that can provide novel insights. From a mental health perspective, these latter can be translated into pragmatic, more personalized prevention strategies to reinforce specific resilience resources and mitigate the current and long-term pandemic's impact.

Stigma, mental illness, and COVID-19 from a frontline clinician perspective: a way to go against the grain?

A well-known insidious obstacle for patients with mental illness is stigma, linked to feelings of incomprehensibility, incurability, and dangerousness. The COVID-19 pandemic represented a relevant additional barrier for these patients, which contributed to their marginalization, quality of life reduction and diminished treatments feasibility. As part of a cross-sectional multidisciplinary project conducted in the psychiatric service of Biella, a northern Italy province, preliminary data were collected by frontline clinicians during the COVID-19 first wave regarding the vicious cycle that may have been created between stigma and psychiatric patients in COVID-19 time. Therefore, we tried to frame the observed changes not in the dual literature paradigms stigma-mental illness or stigma-social consequences in COVID-19 time, but in the mental illness-stigma-COVID-19 three-way paradigm. The protection of this vulnerable segment of population, including a rapid access to COVID-19 vaccination, needs to be recognized as a real public health priority. The role of mental health services in providing information and activating supportive interventions for patients with mental illness is also crucial. Particularly, a multidisciplinary therapeutic team including mental health providers, general practitioners, hospital physicians, and social services would be needed to ensure adequate networks and cares continuity. Actions to contrast stigma can be arduous and exhausting because they must counteract the gravitational pull of customs, prejudices, and ingrained cultural beliefs, and may therefore appear to be moving in an "unnatural" direction, like the water in Escher's lithograph entitled "Waterfall". Nevertheless, there is no less strenuous way to go against the grain.

Psychiatric emergency admissions during and after COVID-19 lockdown: short-term impact and long-term implications on mental health.

BACKGROUND: The 'lockdown' measures, adopted to restrict population movements in order to help curb the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, contributed to a global mental health crisis. Although several studies have extensively examined the impact of lockdown measures on the psychological well-being of the general population, little is known about long-term implications. This study aimed to identify changes in psychiatric emergency department (ED) admissions between two 8-week periods: during and immediately after lifting the lockdown. METHODS: Socio-demographic and clinical information on 1477 psychiatric ED consultations at the University Hospital of Geneva (HUG) were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: When grouped according to admission dates, contrary to what we expected, the post-lockdown group presented with more severe clinical conditions (as measured using an urgency degree index) compared to their lockdown counterparts. Notably, after the lockdown had been lifted we observed a statistically significant increase in suicidal behavior and psychomotor agitation and a decrease in behavior disorder diagnoses. Furthermore, more migrants arrived at the HUG ED after the lockdown measures had been lifted. Logistic regression analysis identified diagnoses of suicidal behavior, behavioral disorders, psychomotor agitation, migrant status, involuntary admission, and private resident discharge as predictors of post-lockdown admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these findings can have implications concerning the prioritization of mental health care facilities and access for patients at risk of psychopathological decompensation in time of confinement policies, but above all, provide a foundation for future studies focusing on the long-term impact of the pandemic and its associated sanitary measures on mental health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Research Ethics Committee of Geneva, Registration number 2020-01510, approval date: 29 June 2020.

Meaning in life and demoralization: a mental-health reading perspective of suicidality in the time of COVID-19.

Consequences on mental health have been reported in general population, vulnerable individuals, psychiatric patients, and healthcare professionals. It is urgently necessary to study mental health issues in order to set priorities for public health policies and implement effective interventions. Suicidality is one of the most extreme outcomes of a mental health crisis. It is currently too early to know what the effect of COVID-19 will be on suicidality. However, authoritative commentary papers alert that most of the factors precipitating suicide are, and probably will be for a long time, present at several individual existence levels. A number of prevention measures and research considerations have been drawn up. A point of the latter, recommended by the International COVID-10 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration, states that "the COVID-19 suicide research response should be truly multidisciplinary. This will foster research that addresses the different aspects and layers of risk and resilience.It will also foster research that informs prevention efforts by taking a range of perspectives" (Niederkrotenthaler et al., 2020). In this light, we would like to propose a reading perspective of suicidality that takes into account Meaning in Life (MiL) and demoralization. Both of the constructs were studied in heterogeneous populations with extreme life situations having led to a fracture between a "before" and an "after", and play a role in affecting suicidality, respectively as resilience and risk factors. In clinical practice, during these unprecedent times, we wish that this more inclusive approach could: 1) contribute to prevention, by delineating more individualized suicidal risk profiles in persons conventionally non-considered at risk but here exposed to an extremely uncommon experience, 2) enrich supportive/psychotherapeutic interventions, by broadening the panel of means to some aspects constitutive of the existential condition of a person who is brutally confronted with something unexpected, incomprehensible and, in some ways, still unpredictable.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Psychiatric Admissions to a Large Swiss Emergency Department: An Observational Study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a public health emergency with profound mental health consequences. The psychiatric emergency department (ED) plays a key role during this mental health crisis. This study aimed to investigate differences in admissions at a Swiss psychiatric ED from 1 April to 15 May during a "pandemic-free" period in 2016 and a "during-pandemic" period in 2020. The study included 579 consultations at psychiatric ED in the "during-pandemic" period and 702 in the "pandemic-free" period. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were compared, and logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with psychiatric admissions during the pandemic. A reduction in total psychiatric ED admissions was documented during COVID-19. Logistic regression analysis predicted the independent variable (ED admission during the pandemic) and estimated odds ratio (OR) for being unmarried/not in a relationship, arrival in an ambulance, suicidal behavior, behavioral disorders and psychomotor agitation. Though only statistically significant in bivariate analysis, patients were also more likely to be involuntarily hospitalized. This picture appears to be reversed from a sociodemographic and clinical point of view to our observation of psychiatric ED consultation in 2016. These findings highlight that the reduction in psychiatric ED admissions during the pandemic seems to be associated with living alone and more severe psychopathologies, which must alert psychiatrists to ensure access to mental health care in times of pandemic.