Effect of Clozapine on Time Assigned to Restrictive Housing in a State Prison Population.

This study examined the effect of clozapine on time assigned to restrictive housing (RH; i.e., solitary confinement), disciplinary infractions, and assaults on custody staff among patients treated within the North Carolina prison system. Records were reviewed for patients initiated on clozapine (n = 84) over a 3.5-year period. Fifty-nine patients completed at least three consecutive months of treatment and were included in data analysis. Assigned RH days and disciplinary infractions were assessed for the periods prior to and after treatment with clozapine. Patients accumulated 13,500 RH days pretreatment and 3,560 days postclozapine initiation. There was a significant reduction in RH days with clozapine treatment (P < .05). Patients with personality disorders (n = 36) had a significant decrease in RH days (P < .05), while those with psychotic disorders (n = 23) showed a decrease with borderline significance (P = .051). There were 253 disciplinary infractions pretreatment, including 27 assaults on custody staff, and 118 infractions posttreatment, including 7 assaults; the decrease in infractions was significant in the first three months of treatment (P < .05). The mean ± SD duration of treatment was 269 ± 102 days. Expanding clozapine use in state prisons should be a high priority, as these data are consistent with reports of clozapine's benefits in community settings.

Preventing and De-escalating Aggressive Behavior Among Adult Psychiatric Patients: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

OBJECTIVE: The project goal was to compare the effectiveness of strategies to prevent and de-escalate aggressive behaviors among psychiatric patients in acute care settings, including interventions for reducing use of seclusion and restraint. METHODS: Relevant databases were systematically reviewed for comparative studies of violence prevention and de-escalation strategies involving adult psychiatric patients in acute care settings. Studies (trials and cohort studies) were required to report on aggression or seclusion or restraint outcomes. Both risk of bias, an indicator of quality of individual studies, and strength of evidence (SOE) for each outcome were independently assessed by two study personnel. RESULTS: Seventeen primary studies met inclusion criteria. Evidence was limited for benefits and harms; information about characteristics that might modify the interventions' effectiveness, such as race or ethnicity, was especially limited. All but one study had a medium or high risk of bias and thus presented worrisome limitations. For prevention, risk assessment reduced both aggression and use of seclusion and restraint (low SOE), and multimodal interventions reduced the use of seclusion and restraint (low SOE). SOE for all other interventions, whether aimed at preventing or de-escalating aggression, and for modifying characteristics was insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence about strategies for preventing and de-escalating aggressive behavior among psychiatric patients is very limited. Two preventive strategies, risk assessment and multimodal interventions consistent with the Six Core Strategies principles, may effectively lower aggressive behavior and use of seclusion and restraint, but more research is needed on how best to prevent and de-escalate aggressive behavior in acute care settings.

Clinical decision-making about inpatient violence risk at admission to a public-sector acute psychiatric hospital.

This is an examination of the extent to which patients who are violent in the hospital can be distinguished from nonviolent patients, based on information that is readily available at the time of admission to a state acute psychiatric hospital. The charts of 235 inpatients were examined retrospectively, by selecting 103 patients who had engaged in inpatient violence and comparing them with 132 randomly selected patients who had not during the same period. Data were gathered from initial psychiatric assessment and admissions face sheets in patients' charts, reflecting information available to a mental health professional within the first 24 hours of a patient's admission. Multivariate analysis showed that violent and nonviolent patients were distinguished by diagnosis, age, gender, estimated intelligence, psychiatric history, employment history, living situation, and agitated behavior. These factors led to an 80 percent correct classification of violent patients and thus may assist clinicians to structure decision-making about the risk of inpatient violence.

Mental health issues among female clients of domestic violence programs in North Carolina.

OBJECTIVE: This study estimated the prevalence of mental health problems among clients of domestic violence programs in North Carolina, determined whether domestic violence program staff members routinely screen clients for mental health problems, described how domestic violence programs respond to clients who have mental health problems, and ascertained whether domestic violence program staff members and volunteers have been trained in mental health-related issues. METHODS: A survey was mailed to all known domestic violence programs in North Carolina. RESULTS: A total of 71 of the 84 known programs responded to the survey (85 percent response rate). A majority of programs estimated that at least 25 percent of their clients had mental health problems (61 percent) and stated that they routinely asked their clients about mental health issues (72 percent). More than half the programs (54 percent) reported that less than 25 percent of their staff members and volunteers had formal training on mental health issues. An even smaller percentage of programs (23 percent) reported that they had a memorandum of agreement with a local mental health center. CONCLUSIONS: The substantial percentage of domestic violence clients with concurrent mental health needs and the limited mental health services that are currently available have important implications for domestic violence and mental health service delivery.

Barriers to the participation of African-American patients with cancer in clinical trials: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: African-American patients have been under-represented in oncology clinical trials. Better understanding barriers to African-American participation may help increase the accrual of African-American patients onto clinical trials. METHODS: Two hundred eighteen patients with malignant disease (72 African-American patients and 146 white patients) were recruited from the Duke Cancer Clinic and from Duke Oncology Outreach Clinics (DOORS). Patients were interviewed using a standardized survey. Questions included patients' knowledge of cancer, religious/spiritual beliefs, satisfaction with medical care, knowledge of clinical trials, reasons for participating or refusing to participate in a clinical trial, financial/transportation issues, and demographic factors, such as age and education. Data on attitudes and belief were analyzed for group differences between African-American patients and white patients as well as between patients who were treated at the Duke Cancer Clinic and patients who were treated at DOORS clinics. RESULTS: Willingness to participate in a clinical trial depended on both race and clinic site. Forty-five percent of white patients, compared with 31% of African-American patients, were willing to participate in a clinical trial (P = 0.05). white and African-American patients who were treated at the Duke Cancer Clinic were more willing to participate in a trial compared with their counterparts who were treated at DOORS clinics (47% vs. 37%, respectively; P = 0.09). The greatest differences between groups (African-American patients vs. white patients and Duke Cancer Clinic patients vs. DOORS patients) were education and income: Much greater percentages of African-American patients and DOORS patients did not complete high school and had annual incomes < $15,000. In addition, more African-American patients than white patients believed that God would determine whether they would be cured or would die from their disease. In a multivariate analysis, education, income, and belief that God would determine the patient's outcome also were correlated with a decreased willingness to participate in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with religion, education, and income, rather than race, may be major barriers to clinical trial participation. Interventions that target education and income may increase the recruitment of African-American oncology patients onto clinical trials.