Design and Implementation of a Regional Inpatient Psychiatry Unit for Patients who are Positive for Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Patients with psychiatric illnesses are particularly vulnerable to highly contagious, droplet-spread organisms such as SARS-CoV-2. Patients with mental illnesses may not be able to consistently follow up behavioral prescriptions to avoid contagion, and they are frequently found in settings with close contact and inadequate infection control, such as group homes, homeless shelters, residential rehabilitation centers, and correctional facilities. Furthermore, inpatient psychiatry settings are generally designed as communal spaces, with heavy emphasis on group and milieu therapies. As such, inpatient psychiatry services are vulnerable to rampant spread of contagion. OBJECTIVE: With this in mind, the authors outline the decision process and ultimate design and implementation of a regional inpatient psychiatry unit for patients infected with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 and share key points for consideration in implementing future units elsewhere. CONCLUSION: A major takeaway point of the analysis is the particular expertise of trained experts in psychosomatic medicine for treating patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Videoconferencing of Involuntary Commitment Hearings in the COVID Era.

Involuntary commitment hearings have been conducted utilizing videoconferencing technology for several years. There is limited information available in the published psychiatric literature pertaining to the use of this technology for commitment proceedings. The University of North Carolina Hospitals adopted a remote videoconferencing (tele-hearing) format for its civil commitment proceedings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and this provided us with the opportunity to investigate the use of such an arrangement. In this article, we review the use of videoconferencing for commitment hearings. We also review select case law related to the utilization of this technology for commitment hearings, which reveals that the courts have not been in full agreement about the legality of a virtual commitment tele-hearing format. Given that the general use of virtual platforms has expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic and many individuals and organizations are gaining confidence in operating this technology, more institutions may decide to shift to a virtual commitment scheme or make a commitment tele-hearing format permanent after the pandemic.

[Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Involuntary admission yes, involuntary treatment no]. / Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): internamiento involuntario sí, tratamiento obligatorio no.

We had the opportunity to know a judicial decision in relation to a nonagenarian COVID-19 patient, which is clarifying regarding the complex issue of involuntary admission and involuntary treatment of the elderly. The judge authorized the involuntary admission but denied the possibility of imposing medical treatment against the will of the patient. This situation invites us to review the different types of involuntary admission that our legal system provides and how involuntary medical treatment is regulated according to its purpose and the patient's ability to decide. In the field of public health, the determining element to be able to impose any sanitary measure against the will of the patient is the risk to the health of the population. In the case presented, the judge rejects the possibility of authorizing medical treatment for not contributing anything from the point of view of public health. However, it does authorize involuntary admission as it is essential to guarantee isolation.

Brief psychotic disorder with delusion content related to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The COVID-19 outbreak has affected millions of people globally and it also has a huge psychological impact. The objective of this case report is to outline the possible effect of the COVID-19 pandemic to the content of delusions in patients with psychosis. Α 34-year-old male with no history of mental disorder, involuntarily hospitalized due to agitation and aggression towards others, experienced grandiose delusions, referential delusions and delusions of passivity. The content of all his delusions was related to the COVID-19 pandemic. His symptoms were not proven to be caused by any physical condition or substance use disorder. He was prescribed olanzapine 10mg bd and lorazepam 2,5mg td and demonstrated significant improvement with a complete subsidence of his symptoms within a week. He was discharged after a total of 13 days with an ICD-10 diagnosis of brief psychotic disorder. At his 6 months follow-up, he reported no psychiatric symptoms. Existing literature indicates a strong relationship between life experiences and the content of delusions. This case report highlights how the stressful life event of the COVID-19 outbreak affected the content of our patient's delusions.

Under which conditions are changes in the treatment of people under involuntary commitment justified during the COVID-19 pandemic? An ethical evaluation of current developments in Germany.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses significant challenges in psychiatric hospitals, particularly in the context of the treatment of people under involuntary commitment. The question arises at various points in the procedure for and process of involuntary commitment whether procedural modifications or further restrictive measures are necessary to minimise the spread of COVID-19 and protect all people involved from infection. In the light of current developments in Germany, this article examines under which conditions changes in the treatment of people under involuntary commitment are ethically justified in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among others, we discuss ethical arguments for and against involuntary commitments with reference to COVID-19, the use of different coercive interventions, the introduction of video hearings, an increased use of video surveillance and interventions based on the German Infection Protection Act. We argue that strict hygiene concepts, the provision of sufficient personal protective equipment and frequent testing for COVID-19 should be the central strategies to ensure the best possible protection against infection. Any further restrictions of the liberty of people under involuntary commitment require a sound ethical justification based on the criteria of suitability, necessity and proportionality. A strict compliance with these criteria and the continued oversight by external and independent control mechanisms are important to prevent ethically unjustified restrictions and discrimination against people with the diagnosis of a mental disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic.