Suicidality and hostility following involuntary hospital treatment

Background Psychiatric patients showing risk to themselves or others can be involuntarily hospitalised. No data is available on whether following hospitalisation there is a reduction in psychopathological indicators of risk such as suicidality and hostility. This study aimed to assess changes in suicidality and hostility levels following involuntary admission and their patient-level predictors. Methods A pooled analysis of studies on involuntary treatment, including 11 countries and 2790 patients was carried out. Suicidality and hostility were measured by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Results 2790 patients were included; 2129 followed-up after one month and 1864 after three months. 387 (13.9%) patients showed at least moderate suicidality when involuntarily admitted, 107 (5.0%) after one month and 97 (5.2%) after three months. Moderate or higher hostility was found in 1287 (46.1%) patients after admission, 307 (14.5%) after one month, and 172 (9.2%) after three months. Twenty-three (1.2%) patients showed suicidality, and 53 (2.8%) patients hostility at all time-points. Predictors of suicidality three months after admission were: suicidality at baseline, not having a diagnosis of psychotic disorder and being unemployed. Predictors of hostility were: hostility at baseline, not having a psychotic disorder, living alone, and having been hospitalized previously. Conclusions After involuntary hospital admission, the number of patients with significant levels of suicidality and hostility decreases substantially over time, and very few patients show consistently moderate or higher levels of these symptoms. In patients with psychotic disorders these symptoms are more likely to improve. Social factors such as unemployment and isolation could hamper suicidality and hostility reduction and may be targeted in interventions to reduce risk in involuntarily admitted patients

Akathisia and Newer Second‐Generation Antipsychotic Drugs: A Review of Current Evidence

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155998/1/phar2404_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155998/2/phar2404.pd

Maintenance of response with atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: a post-hoc analysis of 5 double-blind, randomized clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>How long an antipsychotic is effective in maintaining response is important in choosing the correct treatment for people with schizophrenia. This post-hoc analysis describes maintenance of response over 24 or 28 weeks in people treated for schizophrenia with olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, or aripiprazole.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a post-hoc analysis using data from 5 double-blind, randomized, comparative trials of 24 or 28 weeks duration in which olanzapine was compared to risperidone (1 study; N = 339), quetiapine (1 study; N = 346), ziprasidone (2 studies; N = 548 and 394) or aripiprazole (1 study; N = 566) for treatment of schizophrenia. For each study, time to loss of response in patients who met criteria for response at Week 8 and the proportion of patients who lost response following Week 8 were compared by treatment group. The number needed to treat (NNT) with olanzapine rather than comparator to avoid loss of one additional responder over 24 or 28 weeks of treatment was calculated for each study.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Time maintained in response was significantly longer (p < .05) for olanzapine compared to risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone. Olanzapine did not significantly differ from aripiprazole. The proportion of patients who lost response was significantly lower for olanzapine versus risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone (p < .05). NNTs to avoid one additional patient with loss of response with olanzapine versus risperidone, quetiapine and ziprasidone were favourable, ranging from 5 to 9.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>During 24 and 28 weeks of treatment, the antipsychotics studied differed in the time that treated patients with schizophrenia remained in response and the proportion of patients who lost response. Olanzapine treatment resulted in a consistent and statistically significant advantage in maintenance of response compared to treatment with risperidone, quetiapine and ziprasidone; but not compared to treatment with aripiprazole.</p

Prevalence and severity of antipsychotic related constipation in patients with schizophrenia: a retrospective descriptive study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Antipsychotic are the cornerstone in the treatment of schizophrenia. They also have a number of side-effects. Constipation is thought to be common, and a potential serious side-effect, which has received little attention in recent literature.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>We performed a retrospective study in consecutively admitted patients, between 2007 and 2009 and treated with antipsychotic medication, linking different electronic patient data to evaluate the prevalence and severity of constipation in patients with schizophrenia under routine treatment conditions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over a period of 22 months 36.3% of patients (99) received at least once a pharmacological treatment for constipation. On average medication for constipation was prescribed for 273 days. Severe cases (N = 50), non-responsive to initial treatment, got a plain x-ray of the abdomen. In 68.4% fecal impaction was found.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A high prevalence of constipation, often severe and needing medical interventions, was confirmed during the study period. Early detection, monitoring over treatment and early intervention of constipation could prevent serious consequences such as ileus.</p

Somatic diseases in patients with schizophrenia in general practice: their prevalence and health care

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia patients frequently develop somatic co-morbidity. Core tasks for GPs are the prevention and diagnosis of somatic diseases and the provision of care for patients with chronic diseases. Schizophrenia patients experience difficulties in recognizing and coping with their physical problems; however GPs have neither specific management policies nor guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of somatic co-morbidity in schizophrenia patients. This paper systematically reviews the prevalence and treatment of somatic co-morbidity in schizophrenia patients in general practice. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO data-bases and the Cochrane Library were searched and original research articles on somatic diseases of schizophrenia patients and their treatment in the primary care setting were selected. RESULTS: The results of this search show that the incidence of a wide range of diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, the metabolic syndrome, coronary heart diseases, and COPD is significantly higher in schizophrenia patients than in the normal population. The health of schizophrenic patients is less than optimal in several areas, partly due to their inadequate help-seeking behaviour. Current GP management of such patients appears not to take this fact into account. However, when schizophrenic patients seek the GP's help, they value the care provided. CONCLUSION: Schizophrenia patients are at risk of undetected somatic co-morbidity. They present physical complaints at a late, more serious stage. GPs should take this into account by adopting proactive behaviour. The development of a set of guidelines with a clear description of the GP's responsibilities would facilitate the desired changes in the management of somatic diseases in these patients

Quality assurance in psychiatry: quality indicators and guideline implementation

In many occasions, routine mental health care does not correspond to the standards that the medical profession itself puts forward. Hope exists to improve the outcome of severe mental illness by improving the quality of mental health care and by implementing evidence-based consensus guidelines. Adherence to guideline recommendations should reduce costly complications and unnecessary procedures. To measure the quality of mental health care and disease outcome reliably and validly, quality indicators have to be available. These indicators of process and outcome quality should be easily measurable with routine data, should have a strong evidence base, and should be able to describe quality aspects across all sectors over the whole disease course. Measurement-based quality improvement will not be successful when it results in overwhelming documentation reducing the time for clinicians for active treatment interventions. To overcome difficulties in the implementation guidelines and to reduce guideline non-adherence, guideline implementation and quality assurance should be embedded in a complex programme consisting of multifaceted interventions using specific psychological methods for implementation, consultation by experts, and reimbursement of documentation efforts. There are a number of challenges to select appropriate quality indicators in order to allow a fair comparison across different approaches of care. Carefully used, the use of quality indicators and improved guideline adherence can address suboptimal clinical outcomes, reduce practice variations, and narrow the gap between optimal and routine care