[Joint crisis plans in mental health hospitals-Real practice in an association of psychiatric hospitals]. / Behandlungsvereinbarungen in der Psychiatrie ­ reale Praxis in einem Verbund psychiatrischer Kliniken.

BACKGROUND: Joint crisis plans (JCPs) are offered in many psychiatric hospitals, but patients only rarely make use of them. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rates of JCPs among inpatients of mental health hospitals and to analyze the clinical characteristics of patients who make use of a JCP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of routine data from the statistical database/basis documentation of the LVR hospital association, which consists of nine psychiatric hospitals. The basis documentation is consistent in the nine hospitals. All admissions between 2016 and 2020 were considered. We recorded the existence of a JCP, age, gender and main diagnosis at release, as well as previous hospital stays, detention under the Mental Health Act of the Federal State of NRW and experiences with compulsory measures (seclusion/restraint) in the previous 24 months before index admission. RESULTS: Out of a total of 117,662 inpatients 467 (0.4%) had completed a JCP. Patients with JCP were more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or emotionally unstable personality disorder. Patients with a JCP had more previous inpatient stays and they had more frequently experienced detentions and compulsory measures. However, 50% of the patients with a JCP had other diagnoses and the vast majority of them had experienced no detention or compulsory measure in the 24 months preceding the first documentation of a JCP. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the use of JCPs is limited. The targeted group of patients with severe mental illness and previous experience with involuntary placements and compulsory measures make use of the offer of a JCP but so do other patients as well. Additional qualitative analyses are required in order to analyze the content and objectives of JCPs in more detail.

Quality indicators for mental healthcare in the Danube region: results from a pilot feasibility study.

Quality indicators are vital for monitoring the transformation of institution-based mental health services towards the provision of person-centered mental healthcare. While several mental healthcare quality indicators have been identified as relevant and valid, their actual usability and utility for routine monitoring healthcare quality over time is significantly determined by the availability and trustworthiness of the underlying data. In this feasibility study, quality indicators that have been systematically identified for use in the Danube region countries of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Serbia were measured on the basis of existing mental healthcare data in the four countries. Data were collected retrospectively by means of the best available, most standardized, trustworthy, and up-to-date data in each country. Out of 21 proposed quality indicators, 18 could be measured in Hungary, 17 could be measured in Bulgaria and in the Czech Republic, and 8 could be measured in Serbia. The results demonstrate that a majority of quality indicators can be measured in most of the countries by means of already existing data, thereby demonstrating the feasibility of quality measurement and regular quality monitoring. However, data availability and usability are scattered across countries and care sectors, which leads to variations in the quality of the quality indicators themselves. Making the planning and outputs of national mental healthcare reforms more transparent and evidence-based requires (trans-)national standardization of healthcare quality data, their routine availability and standardized assessment, and the regular reporting of quality indicators.

Upscaling e-mental health in Europe: a six-country qualitative analysis and policy recommendations from the eMEN project.

E-mental health (eMH) encompasses the use of digital technologies to deliver, support, or enhance mental health services. Despite the growing evidence for the effectiveness of eMH interventions, the process of implementation of eMH solutions in healthcare remains slow throughout Europe. To address this issue, the e-Mental Health Innovation and Transnational Implementation Platform North-West Europe (eMEN) project was initiated to increase the dissemination and quality of eMH services in Europe. In this project, status analyses regarding eMH in the six participating countries (i.e., Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, The Netherlands, and the UK) were conducted and eight recommendations for eMH were developed. Expert teams from the six participating countries conducted status analyses regarding the uptake of eMH based on a narrative literature review and stakeholder interviews. Based on these status analyses, the eMEN consortium developed eight policy recommendations to further support the implementation of eMH in Europe. The status analyses showed that the participating countries are in different stages of implementing eMH into mental healthcare. Some barriers to implementing eMH were common among countries (e.g., a limited legal and regulatory framework), while others were country-specific (e.g., fragmented, federal policies). The policy recommendations included fostering awareness, creating strong political commitment, and setting reliable standards related to ethics and data security. The eMEN project has provided the initial recommendations to guide political and regulatory processes regarding eMH. Further research is needed to establish well-tailored implementation strategies and to assess the generalizability of the recommendations beyond the countries involved in the eMEN project.

Identification of risk factors for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization: using environmental socioeconomic data and methods of machine learning to improve prediction.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with a high risk of involuntary psychiatric in-patient hospitalization both on the individual level and on the level of mental health services and the socioeconomic environment that patients live in. METHODS: The present study expands on a previous analysis of the health records of 5764 cases admitted as in-patients in the four psychiatric hospitals of the Metropolitan City of Cologne, Germany, in the year 2011 (1773 cases treated under the Mental Health Act and 3991 cases treated voluntarily). Our previous analysis had included medical, sociodemographic and socioeconomic data of every case and used a machine learning-based prediction model employing chi-squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID). Our current analysis attempts to improve the previous one through (1) optimizing the machine learning procedures (use of a different type of decision-tree prediction model (Classification and Regression Trees (CART) and application of hyperparameter tuning (HT)), and (2) the addition of patients' environmental socioeconomic data (ESED) to the data set. RESULTS: Compared to our previous analysis, model fit was improved. Main diagnoses of an organic mental or a psychotic disorder (ICD-10 groups F0 and F2), suicidal behavior upon admission, admission outside of regular service hours and absence of outpatient treatment prior to admission were confirmed as powerful predictors of detention. Particularly high risks were shown for (1) patients with an organic mental disorder, specifically if they were retired, admitted outside of regular service hours and lived in assisted housing, (2) patients with suicidal tendencies upon admission who did not suffer from an affective disorder, specifically if it was unclear whether there had been previous suicide attempts, or if the affected person lived in areas with high unemployment rates, and (3) patients with psychosis, specifically those who lived in densely built areas with a large proportion of small or one-person households. CONCLUSIONS: Certain psychiatric diagnoses and suicidal tendencies are major risk factors for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. In addition, service-related and environmental socioeconomic factors contribute to the risk for detention. Identifying modifiable risk factors and particularly vulnerable risk groups should help to develop suitable preventive measures.

EPA guidance on the quality of mental health services: A systematic meta-review and update of recommendations focusing on care coordination.

BACKGROUND: The quality of mental health services is crucial for the effectiveness and efficiency of mental healthcare systems, symptom reduction, and quality of life improvements in persons with mental illness. In recent years, particularly care coordination (i.e., the integration of care across different providers and treatment settings) has received increased attention and has been put into practice. Thus, we focused on care coordination in this update of a previous European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance on the quality of mental health services. METHODS: We conducted a systematic meta-review of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and evidence-based clinical guidelines focusing on care coordination for persons with mental illness in three literature databases. RESULTS: We identified 23 relevant documents covering the following topics: case management, integrated care, home treatment, crisis intervention services, transition from inpatient to outpatient care and vice versa, integrating general and mental healthcare, technology in care coordination and self-management, quality indicators, and economic evaluation. Based on the available evidence, we developed 15 recommendations for care coordination in European mental healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: Although evidence is limited, some concepts of care coordination seem to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of mental health services and outcomes on patient level. Further evidence is needed to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of different care coordination models.

EPA guidance on eMental health interventions in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The aim of this EPA guidance was to develop recommendations on eMental health interventions in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A systematic literature search was performed and 40 articles were retrieved and assessed with regard to study characteristics, applied technologies, therapeutic approaches, diagnostic ascertainment, efficacy, sustainability of clinical effects, practicability and acceptance, attrition rates, safety, clinician-supported vs. non-supported interventions and active vs. waiting-list controls. The reviewed studies showed a great heterogeneity concerning study type, study samples, interventions and outcome measures. Based on these findings, five graded recommendations dealing with symptom reduction, acceptability, type of administration, clinician support, self-efficacy and coping were developed.

[Utilization of outpatient psychotherapeutic treatment : A secondary data analysis]. / Inanspruchnahme ambulanter psychotherapeutischer Versorgung : Eine Analyse von Sekundärdaten.

BACKGROUND: In spite of a well-developed and complex mental healthcare system in Germany, problems remain in the capacity of psychotherapeutic care with an undersupply and long waiting times for provision of outpatient psychotherapeutic care. OBJECTIVES: The analyses address the current level of psychotherapeutic care and the role of individual medical specialties in outpatient psychotherapeutic care in Germany. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The analyses are based on secondary data from three statutory health insurance companies and the German pension funds for the years 2005-2007. Anonymized treatment data from 3.3 million insured persons with a diagnosis of a mental disorder (ICD-10 groups F0-F5) were analyzed. RESULTS: In outpatient treatment 9,670,588 psychotherapeutic accounting codes were analyzed of which 33 % were psychiatric, psychosomatic or psychotherapeutic consultations that are not covered by the scope of psychotherapy according to the standard regulations (psychotherapy guidelines). The most frequently used psychotherapeutic services were verbal interventions (accounting codes 35.100 and 31.110) and psychiatric consultations (accounting codes 14.220, 21.220 and 21.221), independent of the mental disorder. Of the patients 5.9 % received directive psychotherapy. The provider-specific analysis showed a great variation in the kind of accounting codes, which were brought into account by the different providers. CONCLUSION: With regard to the reform efforts in psychotherapeutic care, longitudinal trends in the utilization and quality of psychotherapeutic care in the individual fields of treatment should be analyzed in follow-up studies.

[Assessment of quality indicators with routine data: Presentation of a feasibility test in ten specialist clinics for psychiatry and psychotherapy]. / Erhebung von Qualitätsindikatoren anhand von Routinedaten : Darstellung eines Machbarkeitstests in 10 Fachkliniken für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie.

BACKGROUND: Prior to nationwide implementation, the feasibility of newly developed quality indicators must be assessed. The aim of this multicenter feasibility test was an evaluation of the measurability of cross-sectoral quality indicators for depression and schizophrenia by means of routine data. METHODS: The feasibility of the quality indicators was assessed in ten specialist clinics for psychiatry and psychotherapy by means of retrospective analyses of anonymous routine data. The data were extracted from the routine clinical documentation of the hospital information systems and the data from the admission and discharge sheets of the basic documentation in psychiatry (BADO) were additionally used for some clinics. Analyses were conducted for all cases of adults diagnosed with depression or schizophrenia within predefined assessment periods. RESULTS: In total five indicators for depression and nine indicators for schizophrenia were assessed and evaluated as measurable or measurable to a limited extent, sometimes with slight adaptations in the operationalization of the indicator. Due to variations in documentation, some indicators could not be calculated for all clinics. Most indicators could be collated with the data from the BADO. CONCLUSION: An assessment of indicators that measure quality-relevant aspects of care in depression and schizophrenia, is partially feasible by means of current routine data documentation analysis from the participating clinics. However, differing documentation methodologies in the participating clinics impeded a uniform assessment; therefore, for the implementation of nationwide minimum standards for the quality assurance of mental healthcare, a uniform cross-sectoral documentation methodology should be adapted to consensus and relevant quality indicators. The BADO appears to be a suitable instrument for this purpose.

European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance on quality assurance in mental healthcare.

PURPOSE: To advance the quality of mental healthcare in Europe by developing guidance on implementing quality assurance. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search on quality assurance in mental healthcare and the 522 retrieved documents were evaluated by two independent reviewers (B.J. and J.Z.). Based on these evaluations, evidence tables were generated. As it was found that these did not cover all areas of mental healthcare, supplementary hand searches were performed for selected additional areas. Based on these findings, fifteen graded recommendations were developed and consented by the authors. Review by the EPA Guidance Committee and EPA Board led to two additional recommendations (on immigrant mental healthcare and parity of mental and physical healthcare funding). RESULTS: Although quality assurance (measures to keep a certain degree of quality), quality control and monitoring (applying quality indicators to the current degree of quality), and quality management (coordinated measures and activities with regard to quality) are conceptually distinct, in practice they are frequently used as if identical and hardly separable. There is a dearth of controlled trials addressing ways to optimize quality assurance in mental healthcare. Altogether, seventeen recommendations were developed addressing a range of aspects of quality assurance in mental healthcare, which appear usable across Europe. These were divided into recommendations about structures, processes and outcomes. Each recommendation was assigned to a hierarchical level of analysis (macro-, meso- and micro-level). DISCUSSION: There was a lack of evidence retrievable by a systematic literature search about quality assurance of mental healthcare. Therefore, only after further topics and search had been added it was possible to develop recommendations with mostly medium evidence levels. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based graded recommendations for quality assurance in mental healthcare were developed which should next be implemented and evaluated for feasibility and validity in some European countries. Due to the small evidence base identified corresponding to the practical obscurity of the concept and methods, a European research initiative is called for by the stakeholders represented in this Guidance to improve the educational, methodological and empirical basis for a future broad implementation of measures for quality assurance in European mental healthcare.

[Mental healthcare in Germany--current situation and perspectives]. / Die Versorgungssituation bei psychischen Störungen in Deutschland: Aktueller Stand und Perspektiven.

For several years, there has been a significant increase of the utilization of health care due to mental disorders in Germany. Epidemiologic studies dealing with the prevalence of mental disorders show that the prevalence of mental disorders haven't increased. In consideration of the relative stable prevalence, currently there are only speculations about the reasons for the increasing service utilization. The capacity of psychiatric-psychosomatic-psychotherapeutic health care services is increasing. Despite the fact that capacity is increasing, in the outpatient and inpatient sector it comes apparent that there is an increasing burden, indicating that the demand for mental health care is not met by the capacity of psychiatric-psychosomatic-psychotherapeutic health care services. Health care provision by general practitioners and somatic disciplines predominate, going along with low cross-disciplinary and coordinated cooperation. So far, cooperative, intersectoral care models for mental disorders have been realized only in individual projects. Valid data are lacking, which need to reveal the causes and especially the consequences of this situation of mental health care provision and provide reference standards for an optimized, need-based care planning. For this reason, it is imperative to advance quality management for the care of mental disorders. With a view to the high rates of somatic comorbidity, an expansion of cooperative forms of mental health care appears essential.

EPA guidance on building trust in mental health services.

PURPOSE: To advance mental health care use by developing recommendations to increase trust from the general public and patients, those who have been in contact with services, those who have never been in contact and those who care for their families in the mental health care system. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search and the retrieved documents were evaluated by two independent reviewers. Evidence tables were generated and recommendations were developed in an expert and stakeholder consensus process. RESULTS: We developed five recommendations which may increase trust in mental health care services and advance mental health care service utilization. DISCUSSION: Trust is a mutual, complex, multidimensional and dynamic interrelationship of a multitude of factors. Its components may vary between individuals and over time. They may include, among others, age, place of residence, ethnicity, culture, experiences as a service user, and type of disorder. For mental health care services, issues of knowledge about mental health services, confidentiality, continuity of treatment, dignity, safety and avoidance of stigma and coercion are central elements to increase trust. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based recommendations to increase mutual trust of service users and psychiatrists have been developed and may help to increase mental health care service utilization.

[Mental disorders in the general population : Study on the health of adults in Germany and the additional module mental health (DEGS1-MH)]. / Psychische Störungen in der Allgemeinbevölkerung : Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland und ihr Zusatzmodul Psychische Gesundheit (DEGS1-MH).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The German health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS1) with the mental health module (DEGS1-MH) is the successor to the last survey of mental disorders in the general German population 15 years ago (GHS-MHS). This paper reports the basic findings on the 12-month prevalence of mental disorders, associated disabilities and self-reported healthcare utilization. METHODS: A representative national cohort (age range 18-79 years, n = 5,317) was selected and individuals were personally examined (87.5 % face to face and 12.5 % via telephone) by a comprehensive clinical interview using the composite international diagnostic interview (CIDI) questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall 12-month prevalence of mental disorders was 27.7 % with substantial differences between subgroups (e.g. sex, age, socioeconomic status). Mental disorders were found to be particularly impairing (elevated number of disability days). Less than 50 % of those affected reported to be in contact with health services due to mental health problems within the last 12 months (range 10-40 % depending on the number of diagnoses). CONCLUSIONS: Mental disorders were found to be commonplace with a prevalence level comparable to that found in the 1998 predecessor study but several further adjustments will have to be made for a sound methodological comparison between the studies. Apart from individual distress, elevated self-reported disability indicated a high societal disease burden of mental disorders (also in comparison with many somatic diseases). Despite a relatively comprehensive and well developed mental healthcare system in Germany there are still optimisation needs for treatment rates.

[National and international schizophrenia guidelines. Update 2013 regarding recommendations about antipsychotic pharmacotherapy]. / Nationale und internationale Leitlinien zur Schizophrenie. Update 2013 zum Stand der Empfehlungen zur antipsychotischen Medikation.

Treatment guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosis and treatment to assist clinicians, care givers and patients in finding an optimized treatment option in given clinical situations. Specific treatment guidelines for schizophrenia issued by the German Association of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN) and published under the auspices of the Working Group for Scientific Medical Specialist Societies (AWMF) (i.e. fulfilling the highest quality standards at the S3 level) have been available in Germany since 2006. Currently, a comprehensive revision process is ongoing to update these guidelines with the aim to publish the revision before 2014. However, since publication of the German treatment guidelines many clinical trials and meta-analyses have been published which appear to make a new evaluation of antipsychotic drug treatment necessary. Currently available national and international guidelines, such as the WFSBP, PORT and NICE guidelines, place less emphasis on the general superiority of atypical antipsychotic medication but support the idea to evaluate antipsychotic drugs based on the side effect profiles. The present overview discusses the recent guidelines development processes regarding schizophrenia and compares the available German treatment guidelines with recently published international guidelines. Current developments and issues for discussion are described in detail to provide possible implications for changes in treatment recommendations.

[Developmental process of DGPPN quality indicators]. / Entwicklungsprozess der DGPPN-Qualitätsindikatoren.

BACKGROUND: Valid and feasible quality indicators can measure healthcare quality and show potential for improvement in care. The German Association for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (DGPPN) has developed trans-sectoral quality indicator sets for four mental disorders with high prevalence (alcohol dependence, dementia, depression and schizophrenia). MATERIAL AND METHOD: The DGPPN followed a structured multistage process and used guideline recommendations and the results of systematic evidence searches as the basis for the development of these quality indicators. This was followed by a structured consensus process for all quality indicators. RESULTS: Four evidence and consensus-based, diagnosis-specific and trans-sectoral quality indicator sets have been developed. CONCLUSION: It is possible to develop quality indicators on the basis of guideline recommendations. The implementation of the DGPPN quality indicators will play a crucial role in order to evaluate their utility and feasibility as quality measures for German mental healthcare.

EPA guidance on the quality of mental health services.

The main aim of this guidance of the European Psychiatric Association is to provide evidence-based recommendations on the quality of mental health services in Europe. The recommendations were derived from a systematic search of the best available evidence in the scientific literature, supplemented by information from documents retrieved upon reviewing the identified articles. While most recommendations could be based on empirical studies (although of varying quality), some had to be based on expert opinion alone, but were deemed necessary as well. Another limitation was that the wide variety of service models and service traditions for the mentally ill worldwide often made generalisations difficult. In spite of these limitations, we arrived at 30 recommendations covering structure, process and outcome quality both on a generic and a setting-specific level. Operationalisations for each recommendation with measures to be considered as denominators and numerators are given as well to suggest quality indicators for future benchmarking across European countries. Further pan-European research will need to show whether the implementation of this guidance will lead to improved quality of mental healthcare, and may help to develop useful country-specific cutoffs for the suggested quality indicators.

[From "schizophrenia" to "disturbance of the integrity of the self": causes and consequences of renaming schizophrenia in Japan in 2002]. / Von der "Schizophrenie" zur "Störung der Einheit des Selbst" : Ursachen und Folgen der Umbenennung der Schizophrenie in Japan im Jahre 2002.

In August 2002 the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology decided to rename the Japanese expression for schizophrenia from Sêshin Bunretsu Byô to Tôgô Shicchô Shô. Currently the psychiatric classification systems ICD-10 and DSM-IV are under revision. Against this background the Japanese process of renaming a psychiatric disorder is of high interest as far as the clinical, social and cultural implications of the new name are concerned.The authors give an overview of the Japanese process of renaming schizophrenia. Its background and realization are explained and the expectations of Japanese physicians, patients and their families related to the new name are analysed. Furthermore, its effects are evaluated. The aim of the paper is to clarify in how far the Japanese example may serve as a model for evaluating the possible implications that a renaming or nosological redefinition of schizophrenia might have in the course of the revision process of ICD 10 and DSM IV.

Assessing the opinions and experiences of German-speaking psychiatrists regarding necessary changes for the 11th revision of the mental disorders chapter of the International Classification of Disorders (ICD-11).

We performed an Internet-based questionnaire survey of the opinions of German-speaking psychiatrists regarding the experiences with the 10th revision of the international classification of mental disorders (chapter F of ICD-10). We received 304 completed questionnaires including more than 500 free-text comments. The responding group was characterized by professionally experienced middle-aged psychiatrists. German-speaking psychiatrists were comparatively content with ICD-10. Most diagnostic categories received a "satisfied" or "very satisfied" rating by the majority of respondents. Negative "goodness of fit" ratings--a possible indicator of the need for revision--were not higher than 50% for any category. Based on free-text entries, neurasthenia was the single diagnostic category most often suggested for deletion in ICD-11. Changes were considered necessary mainly for dementias and personality disorders. Adult attention deficit disorder and narcissistic personality disorder were the two diagnostic categories most frequently suggested to be added as new categories. This study provides valuable information related to perceived clinical utility of the classification, though with a narrow sample. Information about clinicians' experiences should be combined with scientific evidence for the revision process of ICD-11.