Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Nurs Child Young People ; 2022 Nov 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2259747

ABSTRACT

The number of children and young people admitted to children's wards with an eating disorder has increased significantly since the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In the most extreme cases, those with severe malnutrition may need to be fed via a nasogastric tube without their consent. Children's nurses working on hospital wards may therefore care for children and young people who need to receive nasogastric tube feeding under physical restraint. This article offers an overview of eating disorders and their detrimental effects as well as practical advice for children's nurses, supporting them to provide safe, compassionate and person-centred care to their patients.

2.
BJPsych Int ; 20(1): 4-6, 2023 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2230775

ABSTRACT

Mental health legislation protects the rights of people with mental illnesses. However, despite major social, political and cultural changes, Sri Lankan mental health services still operate on laws enacted mostly during the British rule more than a century ago, in the pre-psychotropics era, and focusing more on the detention of people with mental illnesses than on their treatment. It is high time all stakeholders made efforts for the much-awaited new Mental Health Act to pass through parliament urgently to meet the needs and protect the rights of patients, their caregivers and service providers.

3.
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci ; 30: e54, 2021 Jun 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1281669

ABSTRACT

AIMS: In March 2020, the UK government ordered mental health services to free up bed space to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. This meant service users detained under the Mental Health Act were discharged at a higher rate than normal. We analysed whether this decision compromised the safety of this vulnerable group of service users. METHODS: We utilised a cohort study design and allocated service users to either the pre-rapid discharge, rapid discharge or post-rapid discharge group. We conducted a recurrent event analysis to assess group differences in the risk of experiencing negative outcomes during the 61 days post-discharge. We defined negative outcomes as crisis service use, re-admission to a psychiatric ward, community incidents of violence or self-harm and death by suicide. RESULTS: The pre-rapid discharge cohort included 258 service users, the rapid discharge cohort 127 and the post-rapid discharge cohort 76. We found no statistical association between being in the rapid discharge cohort and the risk of experiencing negative outcomes (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.72-1.8, p = 0.58) but a trend towards statistical significance for service users in the post-rapid discharge cohort (HR: 1.61, 95% CI: 0.91-2.83, p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that service users rapidly discharged from section experienced poorer outcomes. This raises the possibility that the Mental Health Act is applied in an overly restrictive manner, meaning that sections for some formally detained service users could be ended earlier without compromising safety.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Disorders , Aftercare , Cohort Studies , Humans , Inpatients , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Health , Pandemics , Patient Discharge , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Psychiatr Serv ; 72(3): 242-246, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-883467

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the effects of COVID-19 and the lockdown measures adopted in England on patients with acute mental illness. METHODS: The authors analyzed referrals to the crisis resolution and home treatment (CRHT) team and inpatient admissions to acute adult wards, at Leicestershire Partnership National Health Service Trust, an integrated community and mental health trust in the United Kingdom. Number of CRHT referrals and inpatient admissions during a 4-week period starting March 16, 2020 ("COVID-19 period"), was studied and compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019 ("control periods"). Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were compared with those admitted during the 2019 control period. RESULTS: The number of CRHT referrals and inpatient admissions were lower during the COVID-19 period, compared with the control periods, by approximately 12% and 20%, respectively. Patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were significantly more often detained under the Mental Health Act and were considered to pose a risk of aggression. The pattern of diagnoses differed significantly between 2020 and 2019. A higher percentage of patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were diagnosed as having nonaffective psychotic disorders (52% versus 35%) or bipolar disorder (25% versus 15%), and fewer received a diagnosis of depression (8% versus 16%), anxiety disorder (0% versus 3%), adjustment disorder (0% versus 8%), emotionally unstable personality disorder (6% versus 15%), or any other personality disorder (0% versus 5%) (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the pandemic has profoundly affected care by acute mental health services.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Commitment of Mentally Ill/statistics & numerical data , Mental Disorders/therapy , Mental Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Psychiatric Department, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Acute Disease , Adult , Commitment of Mentally Ill/legislation & jurisprudence , England , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Health Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Middle Aged , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data
5.
Int J Law Psychiatry ; 71: 101572, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-478072

ABSTRACT

Psychiatric inpatients are particularly vulnerable to the transmission and effects of COVID-19. As such, healthcare providers should implement measures to prevent its spread within mental health units, including adequate testing, cohorting, and in some cases, the isolation of patients. Respiratory isolation imposes a significant limitation on an individual's right to liberty, and should be accompanied by appropriate legal safeguards. This paper explores the implications of respiratory isolation in English law, considering the applicability of the common law doctrine of necessity, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Mental Health Act 1983, and public health legislation. We then interrogate the practicality of currently available approaches by applying them to a series of hypothetical cases. There are currently no 'neat' or practicable solutions to the problem of lawfully isolating patients on mental health units, and we discuss the myriad issues with both mental health and public health law approaches to the problem. We conclude by making some suggestions to policymakers.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Hospitals, Psychiatric/ethics , Hospitals, Psychiatric/legislation & jurisprudence , Infection Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Competency/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Isolation/ethics , Patient Isolation/legislation & jurisprudence , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , England/epidemiology , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Wales/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL