State Department and Provider Agency Utilization of Evidence-Based Program Registries in Behavioral Healthcare and Child Welfare.

Evidence-based program registries (EBPRs) are web-based compilations of behavioral healthcare programs/interventions that rely on research-based criteria to rate program efficacy or effectiveness for support of programmatic decision-making. The objective was to determine the extent to which behavioral health decision-makers access EBPRs and to understand whether and exactly how they use the information obtained from EPBRs. Single State Authorities (SSAs) and service provider agencies in the areas of behavioral health and child welfare were recruited nationally. Senior staff (n = 375) responsible for the selection and implementation of programs and/or policies were interviewed by telephone concerning their visits (if any) to 28 relevant EBPRs, the types of information they were seeking, whether they found it, and how they may have used that information to effect changes in their organizations. At least one EBPR was visited by 80% of the respondents, with a median of three different registers being visited. Most visitors (55%) found all the information they were seeking; those who did not desired more guidance or tools for individual program implementation or were unable to locate the program or practice that they were seeking. Most visitors (65%) related using the information obtained to make changes in their organizations, in particular to select, start or change a program, or to support the adoption or improvement of evidence-based clinical practices. EBPRs were shown to be important resources for dissemination of research-based program effectiveness data, leading to increased use of evidence-based practices in the field, but the study also identified needs for greater awareness of EBPRs generally and for more attention to implementation of specific recommended programs and practices.

Forensic patients in state psychiatric hospitals: 1999-2016.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years mental health officials have reported a rise in the number of forensic patients present within their state psychiatric hospitals and the adverse impacts that these trends had on their hospitals. To date there have been no large-scale national studies conducted to determine if these trends are specific only to a few states or representative of a more global trend. The purpose of this study was to investigate these reported trends and their national prevalence. METHODS: The forensic directors of each state behavioral health agency (including the District of Columbia) were sent an Excel spreadsheet that had two components: a questionnaire and data tables with information collected between 1996 and 2014 from the State Profiling System maintained by the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute. They were asked to verify and update these data and respond to the questionnaire. RESULTS: Responses showed a 76% increase nationally in the number of forensic patients in state psychiatric hospitals between 1999 and 2014. The largest increase was for individuals who were court-committed after being found incompetent to stand trial and in need of inpatient restoration services. DISCUSSION: The data reviewed here indicate that increases in forensic referrals to state psychiatric hospitals, while not uniform across all states, are nonetheless substantial. CONCLUSION: More research is needed to determine whether this multi-state trend is merely a coincidence of differing local factors occurring in many states, or a product of larger systemic factors affecting mental health agencies and the courts.

Antipsychotic Medication Prescribing Practices Among Adult Patients Discharged From State Psychiatric Inpatient Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to explore antipsychotic medication prescribing practices in a sample of 86,034 patients discharged from state psychiatric inpatient hospitals and to find the prevalence of patients discharged with no antipsychotic medications, on antipsychotic monotherapy, and on antipsychotic polypharmacy. For patients discharged on antipsychotic polypharmacy, the study explored the adjusted rates of antipsychotic polypharmacy, the reasons patients were discharged on antipsychotic polypharmacy, the proportion of antipsychotic polypharmacy by mental health disorder, and the characteristics associated with being discharged on antipsychotic polypharmacy. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed all discharges for adult patients (18 to 64 y of age) from state psychiatric inpatient hospitals between January 1 and December 31, 2011. The relationship among variables was explored using χ, t test, and analysis of variance. Logistic regression was used to determine predictors of antipsychotic polypharmacy. RESULTS: The prevalence of antipsychotic polypharmacy was 12%. Of the discharged patients receiving at least 1 antipsychotic medication (adjusted rate), 18% were on antipsychotic polypharmacy. The strongest predictors of antipsychotic polypharmacy being prescribed were having a diagnosis of schizophrenia and a length of stay of 90 days or more. Patients were prescribed antipsychotic polypharmacy primarily to reduce their symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Antipsychotic polypharmacy continues at a high enough rate to affect nearly 10,000 patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia each year in state psychiatric inpatient hospitals. Further analysis of the clinical presentation of these patients may highlight particular aspects of the illness and its previous treatment that are contributing to practices outside the best-practice guideline. An increased understanding of trend data, patient characteristics, and national benchmarks provides an opportunity for decision-making that is sensitive to the patient's needs and cognizant of the hospital's accomplishments in adopting best practices.

Effects of adopting a smoke-free policy in state psychiatric hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate how adopting a smoke-free policy in state psychiatric hospitals affected key factors, including adverse events, smoking cessation treatment options, and specialty training for clinical staff about smoking-related issues. METHODS: Hospitals were surveyed in 2006 and 2008 about their smoking policies, smoking cessation aids, milieu management, smoking cessation treatment options, and aftercare planning and referrals for smoking education. Comparisons were made between hospitals that went smoke-free between the two time periods (N=28) and those that did not (N=42). RESULTS: Among hospitals that changed to a smoke-free policy, the proportion that reported adverse events decreased by 75% or more in three areas: smoking or tobacco use as a precursor to incidents that led to seclusion or restraint, smoking-related health conditions, and coercion or threats among patients and staff. Hospitals that did not adopt a smoke-free policy cited several barriers, including resistance from staff, patients, and advocates. CONCLUSIONS: Although staff were concerned that implementing a smoke-free policy would have negative effects, this was not borne out. Findings indicated that adopting a smoke-free policy was associated with a positive impact on hospitals, as evidenced by a reduction in negative events related to smoking. After adoption of a smoke-free policy, fewer hospitals reported seclusion or restraint related to smoking, coercion, and smoking-related health conditions, and there was no increase in reported elopements or fires. For hospitals adopting a smoke-free policy in 2008, there was no significant difference between 2006 and 2008 in the number offering nicotine replacement therapies or clinical staff specialty training. Results suggest that smoking cessation practices are not changing in the hospital as a result of a change in policy.