Search

Background: Medical Psychiatric Units (MPUs) are specialized hospital units providing integrated care for patients with co-occurring medical and psychiatric illnesses. Despite their growing relevance, data on their structural characteristics in the United States remain sparse. This study aims to inventory and analyze the structural characteristics of 20 US MPUs, categorizing them using Kathol's and Van Schijndel's frameworks, and identifying shared components to inform future MPU design and quality standards., Methods: A structured telephone survey was conducted with 20 MPUs from 15 states. Units were categorized as Medical Attending MPUs, Psychiatric Attending MPUs, or Co-Attending MPUs, based on physician involvement. Characteristics assessed included medical and psychiatric acuity capabilities, staffing, physical design, and diagnostic services. Data were analyzed for shared and variable characteristics, and findings were compared with prior studies., Results: Most MPUs aligned with Kathol's Type III, characterized by medium to high medical and psychiatric acuity capabilities. Shared characteristics included integrated nursing practices, 24/7 diagnostic availability, and access to ICU-level care. However, significant variation existed in location, staffing, and technical capabilities. Most units were Psychiatry Attending or Co-attending MPUs., Conclusions: The US MPUs included primarily serve patients with medium to severe medical and psychiatric illnesses. Our findings highlight shared and variable features across MPUs, emphasizing the role of contextual needs and financial incentives in shaping their design. This study provides the most comprehensive inventory of US MPUs to date and proposes features to guide future MPU development and standardization., (Copyright © 2025. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To explore the handling of psychiatric patients in medical hospitals and emergency departments (EDs) as well as hospital characteristics associated with the availability of psychiatric services in these settings., Methods: From October 1, 2017, to April 1, 2018, a telephone survey regarding the presence and nature of psychiatric services was attempted among all US registered Medicare hospitals., Results: Of the included 4812 US hospitals, 2394 (50%) were surveyed. Of these hospitals, 1108 (46%) have some psychiatric services available, either in medical EDs or through psychiatric consultation on general medical inpatient wards. If medical ED patients with active psychiatric issues need admission, 59% of hospitals transfer the patient to a different hospital and 28% admit the patient to a medical ward. Exploration by logistic regression analysis of the association of selected variables and available psychiatric expertise suggested that larger hospitals, nonprofit services, or hospitals in urban settings were more likely to have psychiatrists on staff or available for consultation., Conclusion: Despite the growing number of psychiatric patients seeking help in medical EDs and general hospitals, more than 50% of the EDs and general hospitals lack psychiatric services. These results suggest that accessibility to psychiatric care in medical settings requires improvement., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Integrated inpatient medical and psychiatric care units (IMPUs) are hospital wards that care for inpatients with both acute general medical and psychiatric disorders. IMPU development has stalled, and wide variation in IMPU designs may reflect the fact that IMPUs are still in an early evolutionary stage. High-quality evidence concerning the costs and effectiveness of IMPUs is sparse, because IMPUs do not lend themselves well to traditional evidence-based medicine methods. As a result, most studies of IMPUs have been only observational. Therefore, it is time for a different approach, in which goals for IMPUs are explicitly formulated and IMPU research is incorporated into evidence-based practice (EBP) instead of evidence-based medicine. EBP can be viewed as integrating best available evidence into organizational practices by using four pillars of evidence: organizational, experiential, stakeholder, and scientific. Such types of evidence require an investment in describing the field more precisely. When pragmatic reasoning, where clinical expertise and organizational needs determine IMPU designs, is replaced with EBP, researchers can more effectively perform studies that may convince health care policy makers that IMPUs represent a cost-effective way to improve patients' health and that they increase the well-being of both patients and hospital staff.

Objective: The goal of this review was to assess the relationships among aims, designs, and outcomes of integrated inpatient medical and psychiatric care units (IMPUs) and gather the evidence base on the effectiveness of these units., Methods: Using online searches of Embase, Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Google Scholar, the authors identified and reviewed literature describing the aims and outcomes of specific IMPU designs., Results: The search yielded 55 studies, in which the authors identified 39 IMPUs that focused on patients with mood, psychotic, somatic symptom, substance use, organic, and personality disorders and a broad array of medical diagnoses. Most units were psychiatric-medical units and had medium medical and psychiatric acuity capabilities. The studies reviewed provided little information on the cost-effectiveness of various IMPU designs. Although some comparative studies indicated reductions in hospital length of stay (LOS), these studies were generally of low quality and rarely reported other intended outcomes., Conclusions: IMPUs may help shorten LOS. IMPUs should focus care on patients with complex conditions and high acuity to maximize health system value. Implementing compulsory admission facilities; qualified psychiatric, medical, and nursing staff involvement; and cross-disciplinary training may improve IMPUs' capacity to treat high-acuity patients. Future research should relate IMPU designs to intended outcomes.

Intoxicated persons showing challenging behavior (IPCBs) under influence of alcohol and/or drugs frequently have trouble finding appropriate acute care. Often IPCBs are stigmatized being unwilling or unable to accept help. Separated physical and mental healthcare systems hamper integrated acute care for IPCBs. This pilot aimed to substantiate the physical, psychiatric, and social health needs of IPCBs visiting the emergency room (ER) during a 3-month period. All ER visits were screened. After triage by the ER physician, indicated IPCBs were additionally assessed by the consultation-liaison-psychiatry physician. If needed, IPCBs were admitted to a complexity intervention unit for further examinations to provide integrated treatments and appropriate follow-up care. The INTERMED and Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS) questionnaires were used to substantiate the complexity and needs. Field-relevant stakeholders were interviewed about this approach for acute integrated care. Alongside substance abuse, almost half of identified IPCBs suffered from comorbid psychiatric disturbances and one third showed substantial physical conditions requiring immediate medical intervention. Almost all IPCBs (96%) accepted the acute medical care voluntarily. IPCBs showed high mean initial scores of INTERMED (27.8 ± 10.0) and HoNOS (20.8 ± 6.9). At discharge from the complexity intervention unit, the mean HoNOS score decreased significantly (13.4 ± 8.6; P < 0.001). Field-relevant stakeholders strongly supported the interdisciplinary approach and ER-facility for IPCBs and acknowledged their unmet health needs. A biopsychosocial assessment at the ER, followed by a short admission if necessary, is effective in IPCBs. This approach helps to merge separated healthcare systems and may reduce stigmatization of IPCBs needing help.

Course of covid-19 infections and impact on mental health; setting up a national case register.

Objective: Medical Psychiatry Units (MPUs), also known as Complexity Intervention Units (CIUs), provide care for complex patients suffering from both psychiatric and physical disorders. Because there is no consensus on the indications for admission to an MPU, daily practice and effectiveness research are hampered. This study therefore used a concept mapping approach to investigate which organizational and medical factors determine the decision to admit a patient to an MPU., Methods: The first step of the concept mapping approach was to create a list of factors determining MPU admission from literature. Secondly, clinical experts sorted and ranked these factors. The sorted and ranked data were then analyzed, and a draft conceptual framework was created. A final conceptual MPU admission framework was then drawn during an expert consensus meeting and recommendations for implementation were suggested., Results: Thirteen clinical experts defined 90 factors from literature, which were sorted and ranked by 40 experts from 21 Dutch hospitals. This concept mapping approach resulted in a five-cluster solution for an MPU admission framework based on: 1. Staff competencies and organizational pre-requisites; 2. Patient context; 3. Patient characteristics; 4. Medical needs and capabilities; and 5. Psychiatric symptoms and behavioral problems. Furthermore, three inclusion and two exclusion criteria were formulated to help the clinicians decide whether or not to admit patients to an MPU. These criteria can be implemented in daily practice., Conclusion: Implementing the five criteria derived from this conceptual framework will help make the admission decision for complex patients with psychiatric and physical disorders to an MPU more correct, consistent, and transparent., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: The study aims were: to estimate the proportion of patients with an indication for admission to a new high acuity Medical Psychiatric Unit (MPU), to explore the reasons for MPU-admission according to different health disciplines, and to check for differences in patient characteristics. The results of this study are to be utilized in the proposed establishment of a high-acuity MPU in a University Medical Center. Such a unit currently does not exist at Erasmus MC., Methods: Hospital in-patients were included if they received psychiatric consultation from the Psychiatric Consultative Service (PCS). As part of the study protocol, psychiatrists, other medical specialists, and nurses determined the need for admission to the proposed MPU. Patient groups were compared with respect to diagnoses, socio-demographic characteristics and patient routing., Results: One hundred and fifty-one patients were included, 43% had an indication for MPU-admission, for the other patients PCS involvement was sufficient. There was agreement on suicide attempts as a reason for MPU-admission. For psychiatrists, the need for further diagnostic evaluation was a common reason for MPU admission, while other medical specialists more often emphasized the need for safety measures. Patients with an unplanned hospital admission had a higher chance of MPU eligibility (OR = 2.72, 95% CI 1.10-6.70). The main psychiatric diagnoses of MPU-eligible patients were organic disorders (including delirium), mood disorders, and disorders related to substance abuse. The most common diagnoses found were similar to those in previous research on MPU populations., Conclusion: Different medical disciplines have different views on the advantages of MPUs, while all see the need for such facilities. The proposed MPU should be able to accommodate patients directly from the Emergency Unit, and the MPU should provide specialized diagnostic care in an extra safe environment.

.

Objective: To define generic quality indicators for general hospital psychiatry from the perspectives of patients, professionals (physicians, nurses, and managers), and payers (health insurance companies)., Methods: Quality variables were identified by reviewing the relevant literature. A working. group consisting of patients', professionals' and payers' representatives was mandated by their respective umbrella organizations. The working group prioritized the quality variables that were identified. Core values were defined and subsequently linked to preliminary quality indicators. These were tested for feasibility in ten hospitals in a four-week period. Stakeholder consultation took place by means of two invitational conferences and two written commentary rounds., Results: Forty-one quality variables were identified from the literature. After prioritization, seven core values were defined and translated to 22 preliminary indicators. Overall, the feasibility study showed high relevance scores and good implementability of the preliminary quality indicators. A final set of twenty-two quality indicators (17 structure, 3 process and 2 outcome indicators) was then established using a consensus-based approach., Conclusion: Consensus on a quality framework for general hospital psychiatry was built by incorporating the perspectives of relevant stakeholders. Results of the feasibility study suggest broad support and good implementability of the final quality indicators. Structural indicators were broadly defined, and process and outcome indicators are generic to facilitate quality measurement across settings. The quality indicator set can now be used to facilitate quality and outcome assessment, stimulate standardization of services, and help demonstrate (cost-) effectiveness., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: One of the spearheads of psychiatric healthcare in the Netherlands is hospital care for patients with a psychiatric comorbidity. In 2014, the Netherlands Psychiatric Association published ten field standards for Medical Psychiatric Units (MPUs). We catalogued healthcare in the Netherlands on the basis of these field standards., Design: Telephone screening, followed by a questionnaire investigation., Method: In the period May-August 2015, psychiatrists in 90 hospitals in the Netherlands were approached by telephone with 4 screening questions. If the department complied with the screening criteria for an MPU, a structured interview comprising 51 questions followed. The interview script was tested against the field standards using the Delphi method., Results: The screening identified 40 potential MPUs; 37 (92.5%) wards participated in the complete interview., Conclusion: MPUs are unevenly distributed across the country; care content is adequate, but education, tighter multidisciplinary cooperation and availability of somatic nursing expertise on every shift could improve care on MPUs. The departments should also pay more attention to care chain arrangements. The field standards are too stringent; these could be improved by defining 'essential care' and application of differentiated assessment of subcriteria.

Psychiatry and mental healthcare in the Netherlands has a long history of institutional care, slowly more adapted to the community, but differentiated from mainstream healthcare in terms of organization and remuneration. It is in a crucial phase of reconsideration. Along with harsh cuts on the budgets in healthcare, the field is in transition where training is concerned. The good news is that in fruitful cooperation the government and all spcialist parties involved in mental healthcare are on the verge of reaching an important agreement that should make mental healthcare more patient centred, affordable and accessible for those who need it. The bad news that needs serious consideration and ongoing action is that mental health problems are still highly stigmatized and that as a result the government could impose an unjust and unfair own financial contribution for users in mental care as a means of lowering the costs in the field.