Search

Background: The use of digital tools such as electronic patient portals in different health care disciplines and settings has been increasing, but the rate of implementation in clinical practice still lags behind expectations. While studies have linked the use of electronic patient portals to positive health outcomes for patients, studies addressing the viewpoints of healthcare providers are rare., Methods: We performed an online survey of attitudes of healthcare providers towards an electronic patient portal for mental health hospitals. The portal was developed by five communal providers of mental health care in different regions in Germany. The survey was carried out during the early phase of implementation of the portal., Results: Twenty project leaders and 37 clinicians from five different mental health hospitals answered the questionnaire (response rate: 45% and 28%). Overall, acceptance of online applications among respondents was high. The healthcare providers mentioned perceived benefits (e.g. accessibility of new patient groups, use of therapy-free periods) as well as a number of technical, structural, organizational and staffing barriers for successful implementation in hospital settings (e.g. workload of healthcare providers and lack of staff, limited digital competences, unstable WLAN)., Conclusion: The perceived barriers and facilitators of the implementation of online applications and electronic patient portals in mental health hospitals identified by healthcare providers may be taken into account. Improving commitment of the healthcare providers to implementation and use of digital interventions may help foster digitalisation in mental health hospitals., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In forensic psychiatric clinics, patients who have committed a criminal offense on the basis of intellectual disability are also treated in according to Sect. 63 of the German Criminal Code. This group of patients has above-average lengths of stay and specific difficulties in treatment and in transition to aftercare systems are reported from practice. The present study is based on a content-analytical evaluation of ten structured interviews with practitioners of different professions who are familiar with the treatment of this patient group in forensic psychiatry. The aim was to identify treatment experiences and challenges of inpatient forensic care for this group as well as needs for change and suggestions for improvement. Respondents confirmed the specific treatment needs and person- and diagnosis-related challenges known from other studies, which were considered to be causally related to prolonged hospital stay and problems at discharge. Numerous structural and systemic barriers were also identified that impede the shortest possible forensic inpatient care and seamless transition to the non-forensic aftercare system. At the structural level, these included the need for human resources (both quantitative and qualitative) and adapted treatment concepts. Professional aftercare was considered very important for this group of patients. In this regard, the non-availability of suitable institutions, long waiting lists and reservations on the part of these institutions towards former forensic patients were identified as problems. The fact that patients with intellectual disability were less able to make their needs known than other patients and thus often received less attention from the treatment providers can be described as a systemic obstacle. This also applies to the rather high demands that the forensic system, with its goal of "improvement" through treatment, also places on people with intellectual disability. The findings of this study can contribute to improvement of the forensic inpatient care of people with intellectual disability at systemic and structural levels., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation occurs under different legal premises. According to German law, detention under the Mental Health Act (MHA) is possible in cases of imminent danger of self-harm or harm to others, while detention according to the legal guardianship legislation (LGL) serves to prevent self-harm if there is considerable but not necessarily imminent danger. This study aims to compare clinical, sociodemographic and environmental socioeconomic differences and similarities between patients hospitalised under either the MHA or LGL., Methods: We conducted a retrospective health records analysis of all involuntarily hospitalised cases in the four psychiatric hospitals of the city of Cologne, Germany, in 2011. Of the 1,773 cases, 87.3% were detained under the MHA of the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia and 6.4% were hospitalised according to the federal LGL. Another 6.3% of the cases were originally admitted under the MHA, but the legal basis of detention was converted to LGL during the inpatient psychiatric stay (MHA→LGL cases). We compared sociodemographic, clinical, systemic and environmental socioeconomic (ESED) variables of the three groups by means of descriptive statistics. We also trained and tested a machine learning-based algorithm to predict class membership of the involuntary modes of psychiatric inpatient care., Results: Cases with an admission under the premises of LGL lived less often on their own, and they were more often retired compared to MHA cases. They more often had received previous outpatient or inpatient treatment than MHA cases, they were more often diagnosed with a psychotic disorder and they lived in neighbourhoods that were on average more socially advantaged. MHA→LGL cases were on average older and more often retired than MHA cases. More often, they had a main diagnosis of an organic mental disorder compared to both MHA and LGL cases. Also, they less often received previous psychiatric inpatient treatment compared to LGL cases. The reason for detention (self-harm or harm to others) did not differ between the three groups. The proportion of LGL and MHA cases differed between the four hospitals. Effect sizes were mostly small and the balanced accuracy of the Random Forest was low., Conclusion: We found some plausible differences in patient characteristics depending on the legal foundation of the involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation. The differences relate to clinical, sociodemographic and socioeconomical issues. However, the low effect sizes and the limited accuracy of the machine learning models indicate that the investigated variables do not sufficiently explain the respective choice of the legal framework. In addition, we found some indication for possibly different interpretation and handling of the premises of the law in practice. Our findings pose the need for further research in this field., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Mental illness and homelessness are often associated with each other. The study aim was to describe the care trajectories of psychiatric inpatients admitted from precarious housing or homelessness., Methods: An anonymized data collection was performed at two psychiatric hospitals in North Rhine-Westphalia., Results: Of 76 identified patients, every other was discharged to unsecured housing or homelessness. An unresolved housing situation delayed discharge in almost every third case. Upon discharge outpatient somatic or psychiatric treatment was not secured in more than 30%, and in more than 40% of cases, resp., Conclusion: Improvement of the housing situation is possible in a minority of cases for psychiatric inpatients admitted from unsecured housing. The unresolved housing situation was seen as an obstacle to discharge in every third case., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht, (Thieme. All rights reserved.)