Factors influencing the admission decision for Medical Psychiatry Units: A concept mapping approach

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

Dataset belonging to: Need analysis for a new high acuity Medical Psychiatry Unit: Which patients are considered for admission?

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 MPUadmission. 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

Identifying value-based quality indicators for general hospital psychiatry

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