Incarceration among adults who are in the public mental health system: rates, risk factors, and short-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Incarceration of people with mental illness has become a major social, clinical, and economic concern, with an estimated 2.1 million incarcerations in 2007. Prior studies have primarily focused on mental illness rates among incarcerated persons. This study examined rates of and risk factors for incarceration and reincarceration, as well as short-term outcomes after incarceration, among patients in a large public mental health system. METHODS: The data set included 39,463 patient records combined with 4,544 matching incarceration records from the county jail system during fiscal year 2005-2006. Risk factors for incarceration and reincarceration were analyzed with logistic regression. Time after release from the index incarceration until receiving services was examined with survival analysis. RESULTS: During the year, 11.5% of patients (N=4,544) were incarcerated. Risk factors for incarceration included prior incarcerations; co-occurring substance-related diagnoses; homelessness; schizophrenia, bipolar, or other psychotic disorder diagnoses; male gender; no Medicaid insurance; and being African American. Patients older than 45, Medicaid beneficiaries, and those from Latino, Asian, and other non-Euro-American racial-ethnic groups were less likely to be incarcerated. Risk factors for reincarceration included co-occurring substance-related diagnoses; prior incarceration; diagnosed schizophrenia or bipolar disorder; homelessness; and incarceration for three or fewer days. Patients whose first service after release from incarceration was outpatient or case management were less likely to receive subsequent emergency services or to be reincarcerated within 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable factors affecting incarceration risk include homelessness, substance abuse, lack of medical insurance, and timely receipt of outpatient or case management services after release from incarceration.

A randomized study comparing the treatment environment in alternative and hospital-based acute psychiatric care.

OBJECTIVE: Programs that offer alternatives to hospital-based acute psychiatric care have reported promising results of lower costs, equivalent or superior outcomes, and greater patient satisfaction. This study supplements previous research that compared the outcomes, satisfaction, and cost of hospital-based care and one such alternative program, short-term acute residential treatment (START), with an analysis of patient and staff perceptions of the treatment environments. METHODS: Patients who participated were all veterans and were randomly assigned to receive treatment in a hospital psychiatric unit (N=45) or in START (N=48). Both groups completed the Ward Atmosphere Scale (WAS), a standardized measure of treatment environment, at the time of discharge. During the study, staff members from both types of programs also completed the WAS (15 hospital staff and 75 START staff). RESULTS: Both patients and staff rated the START environment more favorably than the hospital environment on five of ten WAS subscales. No differences were found in congruence between staff and participants' scores at START or the hospital. WAS profiles for patients and staff from the hospital closely matched published national norms for hospitals, whereas WAS profiles for patients and staff from START more closely resembled treatment environments recommended for the most disturbed patients (lower levels of anger and aggression and higher levels of support, problem orientation, and order and organization). CONCLUSIONS: The more favorable ratings of the treatment environment at START in this study are consistent with previously published findings demonstrating the viability of the START model as an alternative to hospital-based acute psychiatric care.

A randomized trial of short-term acute residential treatment for veterans.

OBJECTIVE: A variety of alternatives to acute psychiatric hospital care have been developed over the past several decades. including San Diego's short-term acute residential treatment (START) program, now comprising a certified and accredited network of six facilities with a total of 75 beds. This study compared outcomes, patient satisfaction, and episode costs for a sample of 99 veterans who received acute care either at an inpatient unit at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital or at a START facility. METHODS: Consenting participants were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment settings. Follow-up was conducted at two months. During the follow-up period, participants received treatment as usual. Multiple standardized measures were used to maximize validity in assessing symptoms, functioning, and quality of life. RESULTS: Participants who were treated in either a hospital or the START program showed significant improvement between admission, discharge, and two-month follow-up, with few statistically significant differences between the groups in symptoms and functioning. There was some evidence that START participants had greater satisfaction with services. Mean costs for the index episode were significantly lower for START participants (65 percent lower) than for those who were treated in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the START model provides effective voluntary acute psychiatric care in a non-hospital-based setting at considerably lower cost. Efforts to replicate and evaluate the model at additional locations merit attention.