Search

Objective: There is debate regarding the use of coercion in the psychiatric services and how to minimize its use. We examine changes in the use of coercion in one Norwegian psychiatric service area during a nine-year period. Methods: All patients receiving psychiatric services during the periods 2003–2006 and 2008–2012 in the study area were identified, subsequently also only those who had been involuntarily admitted or subjected to involuntary outpatient treatment. Yearwise rates of patients admitted to coercion and coercive treatment-episodes throughout the study period were calculated. Results: The overall number and the rate of coerced patients decreased to the total patient population. Most of the reduction were initially of the observational period. However, the number of coercive episodes per coerced patient increased. The pattern of outpatient versus inpatient modes of coercion both reflected this main trend. Conclusion: The use of coercion seem to be reduced overall, although the increase in treatment-episodes per patient may indicate a complex pattern in use and registration of coercion. The results may be related to legislative changes, restructuring of psychiatric services, or/and modified attitudes of health-personnel to coercion following a range of efforts to reduce it.

Introduction: The deinstitutionalization of psychiatry has in its essence been a downsizing of central psychiatric institutions in favor of outpatient- and community-based services. ‘Continuity of care’ has been a key concept from the onset in these ever more complex systems, both used as a measure of outcome and processes as well as a strategic priority (1). Recent research advocates systems that facilitate continuous clinical relationships between patients and clinicians rather than collaboration between specialized teams, but findings are limited (2-4). At the same time, the international literature has seen an increasing interest of the General Practitioners` (GP) role in the care of mental health patients, and underlines the need for integration of primary care and psychiatric services (5, 6). Recent studies suggest that for patients with severe conditions, cross boundary continuity are poor, and many are not seen in specialized care (7, 8). Purpose and methods: We review and discuss findings from studies on continuity of care in North Norway, focusing on the collaboration in the total of mental health services. We now want to focus on the continuity of care for individual patients with severe conditions between primary care and specialized mental health services: 1. Municipality (GPs), 2. Community mental health centers (CMHC), and 3. Central Mental hospitals (CMH). The two neighboring CMHCs of Vesteralen and of Lofoten, County of Nordland, North-Norway represent an interesting opportunity for mental health services research, because they are organized quite differently in spite of almost identical catchment-area characteristics. The one may be termed a central institution based model, the other a local institution based model. Both operate in concert with the county’s` CMH. These two models compared, particularly whether if local psychiatric beds rather than at a central hospital affects the utilization of GPs and municipality care. It is a retrospective cohort study of the total psychiatric care for all patients in two areas in North Norway, based on a prevalence sample from the routine case-registries of general practice and specialist services over the five years 2008-2012. Results and discussion: The most interesting result is that model of services exert at profound effect on the collaborative care between primary and specialist care. From a total of 971 inpatients included in the study, a majority in the local institution based model also utilized GPs- as well as specialist outpatient consultations. This was not the case in the centralized model, where a substantial proportion of inpatients did not receive specialist outpatient care at all. Further, those patients did neither use GP-care to the same extent as those who utilized both in- and outpatient services. Condition (diagnosis) and length of inpatient stay modified these findings, but system model still exerted an independent and profound effect on whether patients received collaborative care or not. Demographic and clinical variables like gender, age, or diagnosis did not alter these effects. The distinction between ‘continuity systems’ and ‘specialization systems’ described in recent literature may at least partly explain this (2). It may be that our two models facilitate continuous clinical contact between a therapist and patient to a different degree, and that this exerts an effect at both the primary and specialist level of services. In our local institution based system, one therapist may keep continuous contact with the patients over the transition from inpatient to outpatient care, whereas the central institution based model is more specialized and that patients may establish new relationships depending on in need of inpatient or outpatient services. Conclusion: The results suggests that smaller local inpatient units rather than central mental institutions might represent one way of achieving better continuity of care between primary and specialist services for patients with severe conditions. Further, utilization of both in-and outpatient services predicts also more use of general practitioners care. This relationship should be examined further in future research involving the North Norwegian psychiatric health services. References: 1- Myklebust LH, Olstad R, Bjorbekkmo S, Eisemann M, Wynn R, Sorgaard K. Impact on continuity of care of decentralized versus partly centralized mental health care in Northern Norway. International journal of integrated care. 2011;11:e142. 2- Omer S, Priebe S, Giacco D. Continuity across inpatient and outpatient mental health care or specialisation of teams? A systematic review. European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists. 2015;30:258-270. 3- Myklebust LH, Sorgaard K, Rotvold K, Wynn R. Factors of importance to involuntary admission. Nordic journal of psychiatry. 2012;66:178-182. 4- Myklebust LH, Sorgaard K, Wynn R. Local psychiatric beds appear to decrease the use of involuntary admission: a case-registry study. BMC health services research. 2014;14:64. 5- Fleury MJ IA, Aube D, Farand L, Lambert Y General practitioners`management of mental disorders: A rewarding practice with considerable obstacles. BMC Family Practice. 2012;13. 6- Mykletun A KA, Tangen T, Overland S. General practitioners`opinions on how to improve treatment of mental disoders in primary helath care. Interviews with one hunders Norwegian general practitioners. BMC Health Service Research. 2010;10. 7- Reilly S PC, Hann M, Reeves D, Nazareth I, Lester H. The Role of Primary Care in Service Provision for People with Severe Mental Illness in the United Kingdom. PLoS ONE. 2012;7. 8- Myklebust LH SK, Wynn R. Local inpatient units may increase patients’ utilization of outpatient services. A case-register study. Submitted.

Introduction: Psychiatric patients may be subjected to coercion in many different forms, including involuntary admission to psychiatric hospital, involuntary outpatient treatment, and involuntary treatment with medications [1]. The use of coercion in the psychiatric services involves a range of ethical, clinical, and legal issues [2,3]. The Norwegian authorities have stated that it is a goal to reduce the use of coercion in the psychiatric services, as it is believed that this will improve the services and increase the quality of care [4]. Purpose and methods: We review and discuss findings from studies on coercion in North Norway, focusing on the relationship between the services available to patients in primary care and at local psychiatric clinics and the use of coercion. Results and discussion: A lack of services at the municipal level might increase the use of coercion. For instance, approximately half of the involuntary admissions had been referred from doctors working at municipal out-of-hours clinics [5]. These doctors often felt pressured to commit patients to psychiatric hospital, as few other options were available at nights and week-ends [5-7]. The increased availability of other services at nights and week-ends could therefore possibly result in reduced levels of coercion. Having sufficient resources available at the secondary level might also reduce the amount of coercion patients are subjected to. For instance, an area that had beds available for emergencies at local psychiatric clinics had significantly fewer (95% CI for EXP(B)=1.133-2.206, p=0.005) involuntary admissions than a comparable area without such beds [8]. While much of the coercion of psychiatric patients takes place at the tertiary/hospital level, this study suggests that the availability of services at the primary and secondary levels might influence the level of coercion at the tertiary/hospital level. Conclusion: The present study suggests that increasing the availabilty of voluntary psychiatric services at the primary and secondary levels might represent one way of achieving the goal of reducing coercion in the psychiatric services. This relationship should be examined further in future research involving the North Norwegian psychiatric health services. References: 1. Wynn R, Myklebust LH, Bratlid T. Psychologists and coercion: decisions regarding involuntary psychiatric admission and treatment in a group of Norwegian psychologists. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 2007;61:433-437. 2. Wynn R. Coercion in psychiatric care: clinical, legal, and ethical controversies. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice 2006;10:247-251. 3. Wynn R. The use of physical restraint in Norwegian adult psychiatric hospitals. Psychiatry Journal 2015; 2015: 347246. 4. Stuen HK, Rugkasa J, Landheim A, Wynn R. Increased influence and collaboration: a qualitative study of patients’ experiences of community treatment orders within an assertive community treatment setting. BMC Health Services Reserach 2015;14:409. 5. Rotvold K, Wynn R. Involuntary psychiatric admission: Characteristics of the referring doctors and the doctors' experiences of being pressured. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 2015;69:373-379. 6. Rotvold K, Wynn R. Involuntary psychiatric admission: how the patients are detected and the general practitioners’ expectations for hospitalization. An interview study. International Journal of Mental Health Systems 2016; 10: 20. 7. Myklebust LH, Sorgaard K, Rotvold K, Wynn R. Factors of importance to involuntary admission. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 2012;66:178-182. 8. Myklebust LH, Sorgaard K, Wynn R. Local psychiatric beds appear to decrease the use of involuntary admission: a case-registry study. BMC Health Services Research 2014;14:64.

Introduction : During the last 20 years, there has been a shift in Norway, with an increase in services provided at local district psychiatric units and in municipalities and a reduction in centralized hospital services [1]. Simultaneously, attention has been directed to the negative effects of use of coercion within the services [2]. While it has been pointed out that rates of coercion in Norway are relatively high, few have examined the implications of this organizational change for the use of coercion [3]. Methods : Drawing on data obtained from the Norwegian Patient Register, we analyzed all episodes of specialized psychiatric care given in the area of Vesteralen and Lofoten, North Norway, for the periods 2003-2006 and 2008-2012 (data from 2007 were unavailable). Patients subjected to involuntary admission and involuntary outpatient treatments were identified. Results : The number of patients being treated in the study area increased from 886 in 2003 to 1347 in 2012. The number of involuntarily admitted patients and patients in involuntary outpatient treatment fell from 110 in 2003 to 30 in 2012. Discussion, limitations and lessons learnt : Our data suggest that while the number of patients in treatment increased with more than 50% during the study period, the number of patients being coerced was reduced with more than 70%. Several factors (on which we lack data here) may be of importance to rates of involuntary admission and treatment, including patients’ diagnoses [4, 5] and staffs’ attitudes [5, 6]. However, the increased provision of decentralized psychiatric services is likely to be one important factor in the reduction of coercion [3]. Local and low-threshold psychiatric services increase access and give patients the opportunity to get help at an earlier stage, which may reduce the need for coercion [3, 5]. Further studies are needed to examine the importance of psychiatric services organization on rates of coercion. References : 1. Myklebust LH, Olstad R, Bjorbekkmo S, Eisemann M, Wynn R, Sorgaard K. Impact on continuity of care of decentralized versus partly centralized mental health care in Northern Norway. Int J Integr Care. 2011;11:e142. 2. Wynn R. Coercion in psychiatric care: clinical, legal, and ethical controversies. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2006;10(4):247-51. 3. Myklebust LH, Sorgaard K, Wynn R. Local psychiatric beds appear to decrease the use of involuntary admission: a case-registry study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:64. 4. Myklebust LH, Sorgaard K, Rotvold K, Wynn R. Factors of importance to involuntary admission. Nord J Psychiatry. 2012 Jun;66(3):178-82. 5. Rotvold K, Wynn R. Involuntary psychiatric admission: The referring general practitioners' assessment of patients' dangerousness and need for psychiatric hospital treatment. Nord J Psychiatry. 2015;69(8):637-42. d 6. Wynn R, Kvalvik AM, Hynnekleiv T. Attitudes to coercion at two Norwegian psychiatric units. Nord J Psychiatry. 2011;65:133-7.

Background The Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) is a 34-item instrument developed to monitor clinically significant change in out-patients. The CORE-OM covers four domains: well-being, problems/symptoms, functioning and risk, and sums up in two total scores: the mean of All items, and the mean of All non-risk items. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Norwegian translation of the CORE-OM. Methods A clinical sample of 527 out-patients from North Norwegian specialist psychiatric services, and a non-clinical sample of 464 persons were obtained. The non-clinical sample was a convenience sample consisting of friends and family of health personnel, and of students of medicine and clinical psychology. Students also reported psychological stress. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was employed in half the clinical sample. Confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses modelling the theoretical sub-domains were performed in the remaining half of the clinical sample. Internal consistency, means, and gender and age differences were studied by comparing the clinical and non-clinical samples. Stability, effect of language (Norwegian versus English), and of psychological stress was studied in the sub-sample of students. Finally, cut-off scores were calculated, and distributions of scores were compared between clinical and non-clinical samples, and between students reporting stress or no stress. Results The results indicate that the CORE-OM both measures general (g) psychological distress and sub-domains, of which risk of harm separates most clearly from the g factor. Internal consistency, stability and cut-off scores compared well with the original English version. No, or only negligible, language effects were found. Gender differences were only found for the well-being domain in the non-clinical sample and for the risk domain in the clinical sample. Current patient status explained differences between clinical and non-clinical samples, also when gender and age were controlled for. Students reporting psychological distress during last week scored significantly higher than students reporting no stress. These results further validate the recommended cut-off point of 1 between clinical and non-clinical populations. Conclusions The CORE-OM in Norwegian has psychometric properties at the same level as the English original, and could be recommended for general clinical use. A cut-off point of 1 is recommended for both genders. Keywords: Outcome measure; CORE-OM; Translation; Reliability; Confirmatory factor analysis

Most countries allow for the use of involuntary admission of patients. While some countries have stable or declining rates of involuntary admission, this type of coercion is now on the increase in several European countries.To increase understanding of the antecedents of involuntary admission.The importance of various predictors of involuntary admission were analysed in univariate analyses and in a logistic regression model, involving approximately 2000 admissions to a Norwegian hospital.Involuntary admission was positively associated with the diagnostic category of psychosis and negatively associated with the category of anxiety. Emergency referrals were also more likely to be coerced.Diagnostic category seems to be a central factor with respect to involuntary admission. Patients that were admitted in an emergency were also more likely to be coerced.Certain groups of patients are more likely to be admitted involuntarily. Increasing attention to these groups could possibly also contribute to the reduction of coercion.

Following the implementation of the new Norwegian law regarding mental healthcare in 2001, Norwegian hospital-based psychologists with clinical specialist qualifications can make legal decisions regarding the coercion of psychiatric patients. However, it has not been known which attitudes psychologists have towards coercing patients. In the present study, 340 psychologists responded to a questionnaire containing three cases with patients suffering from schizophrenia. They were asked in which cases they would admit involuntarily and treat the patients involuntarily with neuroleptics. A majority would coerce when the patient was violent. More than a third would coerce when the patient had problems coping with activities of daily life. The fewest would coerce a patient that was in an early schizophrenic development with few symptoms. In the cases involving non-violent patients, significantly more would accept involuntary admission than involuntary treatment with neuroleptics. Higher age, female sex and prior experience with coercion were positive predictors of willingness to coerce.