The impact of California's full-service partnership program on mental health-related emergency department visits.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effects of California's 2005 Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) on the use of mental health-related emergency department visits. It focused on one MHSA program, the full-service partnership program, and hypothesized that individuals with public insurance who participate in the higher-quality full-service partnership program would have fewer emergency department visits compared with clients with public insurance who receive usual care. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Short-Doyle/Medi-Cal (Medicaid) file, the Data Collection and Reporting system, and the Consumer and Service Information System, all maintained by the California Department of Mental Health. The analytic sample covered 931,218 observations (155,203 adults) ages 18 and older from January 2007 to June 2008. The data represented clients from seven counties, which made up 48.5% of the California population. Fixed-effects logistic regression was used and included a continuous measure of time, in quarters, in the full-service partnership program; separate quarter indicators; and quarter-county interaction terms. The model thus controlled for both time-invariant personal characteristics (including personality as well as psychiatric and medical history as of entry into the study) and all time-varying county-level characteristics. RESULTS: Relative to persons receiving usual care, the odds of full-service partnership participants visiting the emergency department were 54% less after four quarters of treatment and 68% less after six quarters. CONCLUSIONS: The full-service partnership program was highly effective in reducing emergency visits. A statewide cost-effectiveness study should be conducted to determine the economic viability of the program.

Remifentanil-induced pronociceptive effect and its prevention with pregabalin.

BACKGROUND: Experimental and clinical studies have suggested that remifentanil probably causes acute tolerance or postinfusion hyperalgesia. This study was designed to confirm whether remifentanil given during propofol anesthesia induced postoperative pain sensitization, and we wanted to investigate whether pregabalin could prevent this pronociceptive effect. METHODS: Sixty patients who were scheduled for total abdominal hysterectomy were randomly allocated to receive (1) a placebo as premedication and an intraoperative saline infusion (control group), (2) a placebo as premedication and an intraoperative infusion of remifentanil at a rate of 3-4 ng/ml (remifentanil group), or (3) pregabalin 150 mg as premedication and an intraoperative infusion of remifentanil at a rate of 3-4 ng/ml (pregabalin-remifentanil group). Postoperative pain was controlled by titration of fentanyl in the postanesthetic care unit (PACU), followed by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with fentanyl. The patients were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain scores at rest and after cough, consumption of fentanyl, sedation score and any side effects that were noted over the 48 h postoperative period. RESULTS: The fentanyl titration dose given in the PACU was significantly larger in the remifentanil group as compared with those of the other two groups. At rest, the VAS pain score in the remifentanil group at 2 h after arrival in the PACU was significantly higher than those in the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that remifentanil added to propofol anesthesia causes pain sensitization in the immediate postoperative period. Pretreatment with pregabalin prevents this pronociceptive effect and so this may be useful for the management of acute postoperative pain when remifentanil and propofol are used as anesthetics.