Why psychiatry is different - challenges and difficulties in managing a nosocomial outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in hospital care.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was officially declared a pandemic in March 2020. Many cases of COVID-19 are nosocomial, but to the best of our knowledge, no nosocomial outbreaks on psychiatric departments of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been reported in Europe. The different nature of psychiatry makes outbreak management more difficult. This study determines which psychiatry specific factors contributed to a nosocomial outbreak taking place in a psychiatric department. This will provide possible interventions in future outbreak management. METHOD: A case series describing a nosocomial outbreak in a psychiatric department of an acute care hospital in the Netherlands between March 13, 2020 and April, 14 2020. The outbreak was analyzed by combining data from standardized interviews, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and whole genome sequencing (WGS). RESULTS: The nosocomial outbreak in which 43% of staff of the psychiatric department and 19% of admitted patients were involved, was caused by healthcare worker (HCW)-to-HCW transmissions, as well as patient-to-HCW-to-patient transmission. We identified four aspects associated with the mental health care system which might have made our department more susceptible to an outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: Infection control measures designed for hospitals are not directly applicable to psychiatric departments. Psychiatric patients should be considered a high-risk group for infectious diseases and customized measures should be designed and implemented. Extra attention for psychiatric departments is necessary during a pandemic as psychiatric HCWs are less familiar with outbreak management. Clear communication and governance is crucial in correctly implementing these measures.

[RCT about mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for psychological distress in cancer patients]. / RCT naar mindfulness-based cognitieve therapie voor psychische klachten bij oncologische patiënten.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients may experience psychological distress, like anxiety and depressive symptoms. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) has been shown to alleviate this psychological distress. However, patients experience barriers in participating in face-to-face MBCT. Individual internet-based MBCT (eMBCT) could be an alternative.
AIM: To compare MBCT and eMBCT to treatment as usual (TAU) for psychological distress in cancer patients.
METHOD: 245 cancer patients with psychological distress were randomly allocated to MBCT (n = 77), eMBCT (n = 90) or TAU (n = 78). Patients completed baseline (T0) and post-intervention (T1) assessments. The primary outcome was psychological distress on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed modeling on the intention-to-treat sample. Since both interventions were compared to TAU, the type I error rate was set to p < 0.025.
RESULTS: Compared to TAU, patients reported significantly less psychological distress after both MBCT (Cohen's d = 0.43, p < 0.001) and eMBCT (Cohen's d = 0.63, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Compared to TAU, MBCT and eMBCT were similarly effective in reducing psychological distress in a sample of distressed heterogeneous cancer patients.

Consolidation and prediction of long-term treatment effect of group and online mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for distressed cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Group face-to-face and individual internet-based mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT and eMBCT) have been demonstrated to reduce psychological distress for distressed cancer patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). This study focused on the long-term effects of this RCT during the nine-month follow-up period, and on possible predictors, moderators and working mechanisms. METHODS: Distressed cancer patients (n = 245) were randomized to MBCT or eMBCT. Data were collected at baseline, post-treatment, three- and nine-month follow-up. Data were analyzed with linear mixed effect models and (hierarchical) linear regressions. RESULTS: Analyses revealed long-term reductions in psychological distress and rumination, and long-term increases in positive mental health and mental health-related quality of life (QoL) in both interventions over the course of the nine-month follow-up. Interestingly, patients reported less psychological distress in the follow-up period after eMBCT in comparison to MBCT. Less psychological distress, rumination and neuroticism, and more extraversion and agreeableness at baseline predicted less psychological distress at the nine-month follow-up after both interventions. Less mindful and conscientious patients at baseline benefited more from eMBCT than from MBCT. Regarding working mechanisms, changes in mindfulness skills, fear of cancer recurrence and rumination during both interventions predicted less psychological distress at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest most improvements in cancer patients' increase over time after both interventions. Furthermore, patients seemed to benefit more from eMBCT than MBCT based on psychological distress levels, especially those patients with low levels of mindfulness skills and conscientiousness.

Exploring associations between psychiatric disorder, psychological distress, and health care utilization in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: The mental burden of cancer might elicit additional health care utilization. However, it is unclear how psychiatric disorder and psychological distress relate to health care utilization. Therefore, this study explores associations between psychiatric disorder, psychological distress, and health care utilization. It was hypothesized that presence of psychiatric disorder and psychological distress was associated with increased health care utilization and costs. METHODS: The current study consisted of secondary analyses of baseline data of a larger randomized controlled trial. Two hundred forty-five mixed-cancer patients with at least mild symptoms of psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-T ≥ 11) were mainly recruited via online media, participating centers and patient associations. Patients were assessed with Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) for depressive, anxiety, and/or adjustment disorder. Psychological distress was measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Retrospective self-reported health care utilization in the past 3 months was collected. Associations between predictors and health care utilization in terms of incidence rate ratios (IRR) and costs per category (mental, primary, somatic, and complementary) were assessed by negative binomial, logistic, and gamma regression. RESULTS: Eighty-nine (36.3%) patients suffered from psychiatric disorder, which was associated with mental health care utilization (IRR = 1.63) and costs (OR = 3.11). We observed a nonsignificant trend of somatic health care utilization in patients with psychiatric disorder. Psychological distress was associated with mental health care utilization (IRR = 1.09) and costs (OR = 1.09). Psychological distress was also associated with complementary health care utilization (IRR = 1.03). CONCLUSION: Psychiatric disorder and psychological distress were associated with mental health care use and costs. Psychological distress was associated with complementary health care use. Adequate assessment and referral to mental health care might prevent unnecessary health care utilization.

Study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of group and individual internet-based Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy with treatment as usual in reducing psychological distress in cancer patients: the BeMind study.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based interventions have shown to reduce psychological distress in cancer patients. The accessibility of mindfulness-based interventions for cancer patients could be further improved by providing mindfulness using an individual internet-based format. The aim of this study is to test the effectiveness of a Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) group intervention for cancer patients in comparison with individual internet-based MBCT and treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS/DESIGN: A three-armed multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing group-based MBCT to individual internet-based MBCT and TAU in cancer patients who suffer from at least mild psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) ≥ 11). Measurements will be conducted prior to randomization (baseline), post-treatment and at 3 months and 9 months post-treatment. Participants initially allocated to TAU are subsequently randomized to either group- or individual internet-based MBCT and will receive a second baseline measurement after 3 months. Thus, the three-armed comparison will have a time span of approximately 3 months. The two-armed intervention comparison includes a 9-month follow-up and will also consist of participants randomized to the intervention after TAU. Primary outcome will be post-treatment psychological distress (HADS). Secondary outcomes are fear of cancer recurrence (Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory), rumination (Rumination and Reflection Questionnaire), positive mental health (Mental Health Continuum - Short Form), and cost-effectiveness (health-related quality of life (EuroQol -5D and Short Form-12) and health care usage (Trimbos and iMTA questionnaire on Costs associated with Psychiatric illness). Potential predictors: DSM-IV-TR mood/anxiety disorders (SCID-I) and neuroticism (NEO-Five Factor Inventory) will be measured. Mediators of treatment effect: mindfulness skills, (Five-Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire- Short Form), working alliance (Working Alliance Inventory) and group cohesion (Group Cohesion Questionnaire) will also be measured. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide valuable information on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of group versus internet-based MBCT versus TAU for distressed cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02138513. Registered 6 May 2014.

[Time-limits on collaboration between the emergency mental health services and the police: a practice-based evaluation in the City of Utrecht, the Netherlands]. / Tijdslimieten in de samenwerking tussen politie en crisisdienst: een praktijkevaluatie in Utrecht.

National and regional agreements have been reached with regard to time-limits on collaboration between the emergency mental health services and the police. On the basis of 69 emergency cases attended by both the crisis-team and the police in Utrecht, we investigated whether the time-limits had been observed in that city. Of the cases 85% were dealt with adequately within 6 hours (in accordance with the national guideline and 20% within 2 hours (regional norm). The average time needed to reach an emergency case was 1 hour 35 minutes, but was longer when the emergency resulted from substance abuse. The average time required for case-assessment was 1 hour 25 minutes and was longer in cases requiring compulsory detention and in cases involving manic behaviour.