Search

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Background Refugee populations have an increased risk for mental disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorders. Comorbidity is common. At the same time, refugees face multiple barriers to accessing mental health treatment. Only a minority of them receive adequate help. The planned trial evaluates a low-threshold, transdiagnostic Internet-based treatment. The trial aims at establishing its efficacy and cost-effectiveness compared with no treatment. Methods N = 131 treatment-seeking Arabic- or Farsi-speaking patients, meeting diagnostic criteria for a depressive, anxiety, and/or posttraumatic stress disorder will be randomized to either the intervention or the waitlist control group. The intervention group receives an Internet-based treatment with weekly written guidance provided by Arabic- or Farsi-speaking professionals. The treatment is based on the Common Elements Treatment Approach (CETA), is tailored to the individual patient, and takes 6–16 weeks. The control group will wait for 3 months and then receive the Internet-based treatment. Discussion The planned trial will result in an estimate of the efficacy of a low-threshold and scalable treatment option for the most common mental disorders in refugees. Trial registration German Registry for Clinical Trials DRKS00024154. Registered on February 1, 2021.

Abstract Background Refugees are at high risk for developing mental illnesses. Due to language and cultural barriers, there is need for specifically adapted therapeutic procedures for refugees in inpatient mental health care settings. Internet-based applications in refugee mother tongues have the potential to improve the outcomes of mental health care for this vulnerable population. The key research question of the present implementation study is whether the newly developed “blended ALMAMAR” app for Arabic and Farsi speaking refugees in Germany is used and accepted by patients and professionals in routine inpatient mental health care (blended care). Methods We present the design of an observational, prospective multicenter implementation study in eight psychiatric hospitals. We plan to recruit 100 Farsi or Arabic speaking refugees receiving in-patient treatment due to depression, anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder or substance use disorders. These patients will get access to the “blended ALMAMAR” app during their inpatient stay in a blended-care approach. We will assess the usage (e.g., duration and frequency of use of the app) as well as subjective acceptability and usability of the intervention. To identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with “blended ALMAMAR” usage, we will also perform clinical and questionnaire assessments. Discussion The newly developed “blended ALMAMAR” app may help to close communication gaps for the hard-to reach and vulnerable group of refugees in inpatient mental health care. It is the first blended-care intervention that addresses severely mentally ill refugees in an inpatient psychiatric setting in Germany. Trial registration The trial was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register on November 11, 2021 (DRKS00025972) and adapted on November 14, 2023.

Abstract Background Healthcare for people with somatic and comorbid mental diseases can pose a challenge to the healthcare system. The aim of the SoKo study (the Somatic care of patients with mental Comorbidity) is to assess the current state of care and the facilitators and barriers of somatic care of people with somatic disorders and comorbidity of a mental disorder. Methods The study is conducted as a mixed-methods approach and will include (a) descriptive and inferential analysis of secondary claims data of persons insured by a German statutory health insurance company in North Rhine-Westphalia (Techniker Krankenkasse, TK-NRW), (b) qualitative individual interviews and group discussions, and (c) based on (a) and (b), quantitative surveys of both patients and physicians. We intend to analyse a sample of claims data of about 2.6 million persons insured by TK-NRW (group comparisons between TK-NRW insured persons with a diagnosis of a prevalent somatic disease [ICD-10-GM E01–E07, E11, E66, I10–I15, I20–I25, I60–I64] with and without comorbidity of a mental disorder [F00–F99]), in order to assess the uptake of somatic care by people with mental and somatic comorbidity. In addition, primary data from patients with the aforementioned somatic illnesses and a mental comorbidity as well as primary data from physicians (general practitioners and medical specialists) will be collected. The focus here will be on support factors and barriers in the somatic care of people with mental comorbidity. Discussion Up to now, there have been no published results of a systematic collection of both secondary and primary data on the utilisation of different care services of somatically ill patients with mental comorbidity for Germany. The present mixed-methods study aims to address this gap. Trial registration The trial is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register DRKS: DRKS00030513. The trial was registered on 3rd February 2023.

Abstract Background We aimed to identify differences in predictors of involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation depending on whether the inpatient stay was involuntary right from the beginning since admission or changed from voluntary to involuntary in the course of in-patient treatment. Methods We conducted an analysis of 1,773 mental health records of all cases treated under the Mental Health Act in the city of Cologne in the year 2011. 79.4% cases were admitted involuntarily and 20.6% were initially admitted on their own will and were detained later during the course of in-patient stay. We compared the clinical, sociodemographic, socioeconomic and environmental socioeconomic data (ESED) of the two groups. Finally, we employed two different machine learning decision-tree algorithms, Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) and Random Forest. Results Most of the investigated variables did not differ and those with significant differences showed consistently low effect sizes. In the CHAID analysis, the first node split was determined by the hospital the patient was treated at. The diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, an affective disorder, age, and previous outpatient treatment as well as the purchasing power per 100 inhabitants in the living area of the patients also played a role in the model. In the Random Forest, age and the treating hospital had the highest impact on the accuracy and decrease in Gini of the model. However, both models achieved a poor balanced accuracy. Overall, the decision-tree analyses did not yield a solid, causally interpretable prediction model. Conclusion Cases with detention at admission and cases with detention in the course of in-patient treatment were largely similar in respect to the investigated variables. Our findings give no indication for possible differential preventive measures against coercion for the two subgroups. There is no need or rationale to differentiate the two subgroups in future studies.

Abstract Background Within the last five years the number of homeless persons in Germany has more than doubled, with many suffering from mental illnesses that require treatment. Whether the mental illness itself led to losing shelter or whether the state of being homeless increased the likelihood of developing symptoms of a mental disorder remains unclear. The current study assessed the interaction of homelessness and mental illness from a care provider perspective. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of inpatient routine data from 20 psychiatric hospitals in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany, over a period of four years (N = 366,767 inpatient treatment cases). Patients were considered “homeless” if they had no fixed unique address. Results About 2.4% of the analyzed cohort was classified as homeless, with increasing tendency over the study period (+14% from 2016 to 2019). The percentage of homeless patients varied broadly between the hospitals (0.2–6.3%). Homeless patients were more often male and on average eight years younger than patients with a fixed address. Homeless patients experienced more involuntary measures (admission and restraint), had a shorter course of treatment and were more often discharged within one day. Every second homeless case was diagnosed with a substance use disorder and every third homeless case with a psychotic disorder, whereas affective disorders were diagnosed less frequently in this group. Psychiatric comorbidity occurred more often in homeless patients whereas somatic diseases did not. Conclusions Multiple patient-related sociodemographic and local factors are associated with homelessness of psychiatric inpatients. In addition, clinical factors differ between homeless and non-homeless patients, pointing to more severe mental illness and treatment complications (e.g., coercive measures) in homeless persons. Thus, homelessness of psychiatric inpatients can imply special challenges that need to be considered by healthcare providers and politicians, with the goal of optimizing mental and social care and the mental health outcomes of homeless persons.

Abstract Background The purpose of our study was to identify predictors of a high risk of involuntary psychiatric in-patient treatment. Methods We carried out a detailed analysis of the 1773 mental health records of all the persons treated as in-patients under the PsychKG NRW (Mental Health Act for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany) in a metropolitan region of Germany (the City of Cologne) in 2011. 3991 mental health records of voluntary in-patients from the same hospitals served as a control group. We extracted medical, sociodemographic and socioeconomic data from these records. Apart from descriptive statistics, we used a prediction model employing chi-squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID). Results Among involuntary patients, organic mental disorders (ICD10: F0) and schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders (ICD10: F2) were overrepresented. Patients treated as in-patients against their will were on average older, they were more often retired and had a migratory background. The Exhaustive CHAID analysis confirmed the main diagnosis to be the strongest predictor of involuntary in-patient psychiatric treatment. Other predictors were the absence of outpatient treatment prior to admission, admission outside of regular service hours and migratory background. The highest risk of involuntary treatment was associated with patients with organic mental disorders (ICD 10: F0) who were married or widowed and patients with non-organic psychotic disorders (ICD10: F2) or mental retardation (ICD10: F7) in combination with a migratory background. Also, referrals from general hospitals were frequently encountered. Conclusions We identified modifiable risk factors for involuntary psychiatric in-patient treatment. This implies that preventive measures may be feasible and should be implemented to reduce the rate of involuntary psychiatric in-patient treatment. This may include efforts to establish crisis resolution teams to improve out-patient treatment, train general hospital staff in deescalation techniques, and develop special programs for patients with a migratory background.