A 10-year comparison of short versus long-term court-ordered psychiatric hospitalization: a follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: The Israel Mental Health Act of 1991 stipulates a process for court-ordered involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. As in many Western countries, this process is initiated when an individual is deemed "not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCR-MD)" or "incompetent to stand trial (IST)." A patient thus hospitalized may be discharged by the district psychiatric committee (DPC). The decision rendered by the DPC is guided by an amendment to the Mental Health Act that states that the length of the hospitalization should be in accordance with the maximum time of incarceration associated with the alleged crime. Little empirical research has been devoted to the psychiatric, medical, and social outcome of short versus long-term hospitalization under court order. METHODS: In our study we examined the outcomes of court-ordered criminal commitments over a 10-year period (2005-2015) at the Jerusalem Mental Health Center with a catchment area of 1.5 million. We found 136 cases (between the ages of 18 and 60) of criminal commitments during that period and used the average length of hospitalization, 205 days, as a cutoff point between short and long stays. We compared the outcomes of short and long hospitalizations of discharged patients using a follow-up phone survey (at least 7 years post-discharge) and data extracted from the Israel National Register to include recidivism, patient satisfaction and trust in the system, readmission, and demise. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant difference between short-term and long-term hospitalizations for reducing instances of re-hospitalization (p = 0.889) and recidivism (p = 0.54), although there was a slight trend toward short-term hospitalization vis-à-vis reduced recidivism. We did not find a statistical difference in mortality or incidents of suicide between the two groups, but the absolute numbers are higher than expected in both of them. Moreover, our survey showed that short-term hospitalization inspired more trust in the legal process (conduct of the DPC), in pharmacological treatment satisfaction, and in understanding the NCR-MD as a step toward avoiding future hospitalization and that it resulted in a higher level of patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The results we present show that as far as recidivism and readmission are concerned, there is no evidence to suggest that there is an advantage to long-term hospitalization. Although there may be unmeasured variables not investigated in the present study that might have contributed to the discrepancy between long- and short-term hospitalization, we believe that longer hospitalizations may not serve the intended treatment purpose. Additionally, the high cost of long-term hospitalization and overcrowded wards are obviously major practical drawbacks. The impact of the clinical outcomes should be reflected in medico-legal legislation and in court-ordered hospitalization in particular.

Comparable reliability and acceptability of telepsychiatry and face-to-face psychiatric assessments in the emergency room setting.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the reliability and acceptability of psychiatric interviews using telepsychiatry and face-to-face modalities in the emergency room setting. METHODS: In this prospective observational feasibility study, psychiatric patients (n = 38) who presented in emergency rooms between April and June 2020, went through face-to-face and videoconference telepsychiatry interviews in a non-randomised varying order. Interviewers and a senior psychiatry resident who observed both interviews determined diagnosis, recommended disposition and indication for involuntary admission. Patients and psychiatrists completed acceptability post-assessment surveys. RESULTS: Agreement between raters on recommended disposition and indication for involuntary admission as measured by Cohen's kappa was 'strong' to 'almost perfect' (0.84/0.81, 0.95/0.87 and 0.89/0.94 for face-to-face vs. telepsychiatry, observer vs. face-to-face and observer vs. telepsychiatry, respectively). Partial agreement between the raters on diagnosis was 'strong' (Cohen's kappa of 0.81, 0.85 and 0.85 for face-to-face vs. telepsychiatry, observer vs. face-to-face and observer vs. telepsychiatry, respectively).Psychiatrists' and patients' satisfaction rates, and psychiatrists' perceived certainty rates, were comparably high in both face-to-face and telepsychiatry groups. CONCLUSIONS: Telepsychiatry is a reliable and acceptable alternative to face-to-face psychiatric assessments in the emergency room setting. Implementing telepsychiatry may improve the quality and accessibility of mental health services.Key pointsTelepsychiatry and face-to-face psychiatric assessments in the emergency room setting have comparable reliability.Patients and providers report a comparable high level of satisfaction with telepsychiatry and face-to-face modalities in the emergency room setting.Providers report a comparable level of perceived certainty in their clinical decisions based on telepsychiatry and face-to-face psychiatric assessments in the emergency room setting.

Patients behind the front lines: the exchange of mentally-ill patients in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The British Mandate in Palestine ended abruptly in 1948. The British departure engendered a complex situation which affected all areas of life, and the country's health system was no exception. Gradual transition of the infrastructure was almost impossible owing to the ineffectiveness of the committee appointed by the United Nations. The situation was further complicated by the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli War. We relate for the first time the story of 75 Jewish patients who were left in a former British mental hospital in Bethlehem - deep behind the front lines. Despite the hostilities, there were complex negotiations about relocating those patients. This episode sheds light on the Jewish and Arab relationship as it pertained to mental institutions during and immediately after the British Mandate.

[THE EFFICACY OF THE DECISIONS OF TREATING PHYSICIANS VS. DISTRICT PSYCHIATRIC COMMITTEES IN REGARD TO THE DISCHARGE OF COMMITTED PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS: A REGIONAL STUDY].

BACKGROUND: The Israel Mental Health Act of 1991 stipulates a process for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization (IPH). A patient thus hospitalized can be discharged by either the treating psychiatrist (TP) or the district psychiatric committee (DPC). The decision rendered by the DPC is often at odds with the recommendation of the TP. This study attempts to compare the variance between the TP and the DPC decisions in different geographical regions in Israel. METHODS: We examined the outcomes of decisions made by the DPC using readmission data - an internationally recognized indicator of the quality of hospital care - and compared them to the outcomes of patients discharged by the TP. All IPH discharges resulting from the DPC's determination for the year 2013 (N = 972) were taken from the Israel National Register. We also collected information regarding all IPH discharges owing to the TP's decision for 2013 (N = 5788). We defined "failure" as readmission in fewer than 30 days, involuntary civil readmission in fewer than 180 days, and involuntary readmission under court order in less than 1 year. RESULTS: The re-hospitalization pattern was compared in the two groups of patients discharged from psychiatric hospitalization during 2013 (index discharges) and followed up individually for a year. We found a statistically significant difference between the success rates of the various regional DPCs and the hospital TP groups, with the TP average (74.5% national success rate) success significantly better than the DPC groups (66.7% national success rate). Moreover, the variance between the decisions made in the different geographical regions in the two groups was also statistically significant (σ2 variance was 80.4 and 27.1 for the DPC and TP groups, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results we present indicate that the variance of decision "failure" (readmission) and "success" across the various geographical regions was found to be significantly better in the TP group than in the DPC group. We consider it likely that whereas TPs discharge IPH patients in accordance with well-accepted clinical approaches, the DPC's decisions are based on interpretations of the law (regarding, e.g., the patient posing a physical threat) and on the DPC's understanding of what is meant by the patient's "best interests." We suggest introducing more formal psychiatric training for the legal staff of the DPCs and building a structured and standardized method for reviewing the patient. Moreover, we propose using "soft paternalism" as an approach, which would justify limitations on individual liberties for the benefit of persons being restricted, provided that they are unable to make a choice that would be consistent with their own interests. This is often an appropriate and perhaps a more practical approach, one that the DPC could adopt in place of the present conservative approach, which requires a specific standard of "proof" of major illness to qualify as insanity requiring hospitalization.

A comparison of decisions to discharge committed psychiatric patients between treating physicians and district psychiatric committees: an outcome study.

BACKGROUND: The Israel Mental Health Act of 1991 stipulates a process for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization (IPH). A patient thus hospitalized may be discharged by either the treating psychiatrist (TP) or the district psychiatric committee (DPC). The decision rendered by the DPC is often at odds with the recommendation of the TP. Although much has been written about the ethical issues of restricting patients' rights and limiting their freedom, far less attention has been devoted to the psychiatric, medical, and social outcome of legal patient discharge against the doctor's recommendation. METHODS: In our study we examined the outcomes of the decisions made by the DPC using readmission data, an internationally recognized indicator of the quality of hospital care, and compared them to the outcomes of patients discharged by the TP. All IPH discharges resulting from the DPC's determination for the year 2013 (N = 972) were extracted from the Israel national register. We also collected all IPH discharges owing to the TP's decision for 2013 (N = 5788). We defined "failure" as readmission in less than 30 days, involuntary civil readmission in less than 180 days, and involuntary readmission under court order in less than 1 year. RESULTS: The rehospitalization pattern was compared in the two groups of patients discharged from their psychiatric hospitalization during 2013 (index discharges) and followed up individually for a year. We found a statistically significant difference between the DPC and the TP group for each of the time frames, with the DPC group returning to IPH much more frequently than the TP group. Using cross-sectional comparison with logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, diagnosis and length of hospitalization, we found the probability of a decision failure in the TP group was significantly less with an OR of 0.7 (95% CI .586-.863), representing a 30% adjusted decrease in the probability for failure in the TP group. CONCLUSIONS: The results we present show that the probability of decision "failure" (readmission) was found to be significantly higher in the DPC group than in the TP group. It is often assumed that IPH patients will fare better at home in their communities than in a protracted hospitalization. This is frequently the rationale for early discharge by the DPC (30.1 days vs. 75.9 DPC and TP groups, respectively). Our results demonstrate that this rationale may well be a faulty generalization.