Identification of risk factors for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization: using environmental socioeconomic data and methods of machine learning to improve prediction

Background!#!The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with a high risk of involuntary psychiatric in-patient hospitalization both on the individual level and on the level of mental health services and the socioeconomic environment that patients live in.!##!Methods!#!The present study expands on a previous analysis of the health records of 5764 cases admitted as in-patients in the four psychiatric hospitals of the Metropolitan City of Cologne, Germany, in the year 2011 (1773 cases treated under the Mental Health Act and 3991 cases treated voluntarily). Our previous analysis had included medical, sociodemographic and socioeconomic data of every case and used a machine learning-based prediction model employing chi-squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID). Our current analysis attempts to improve the previous one through (1) optimizing the machine learning procedures (use of a different type of decision-tree prediction model (Classification and Regression Trees (CART) and application of hyperparameter tuning (HT)), and (2) the addition of patients' environmental socioeconomic data (ESED) to the data set.!##!Results!#!Compared to our previous analysis, model fit was improved. Main diagnoses of an organic mental or a psychotic disorder (ICD-10 groups F0 and F2), suicidal behavior upon admission, admission outside of regular service hours and absence of outpatient treatment prior to admission were confirmed as powerful predictors of detention. Particularly high risks were shown for (1) patients with an organic mental disorder, specifically if they were retired, admitted outside of regular service hours and lived in assisted housing, (2) patients with suicidal tendencies upon admission who did not suffer from an affective disorder, specifically if it was unclear whether there had been previous suicide attempts, or if the affected person lived in areas with high unemployment rates, and (3) patients with psychosis, specifically those who lived in densely built areas with a large proportion of small or one-person households.!##!Conclusions!#!Certain psychiatric diagnoses and suicidal tendencies are major risk factors for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. In addition, service-related and environmental socioeconomic factors contribute to the risk for detention. Identifying modifiable risk factors and particularly vulnerable risk groups should help to develop suitable preventive measures

Joint crisis plans in mental health hospitals-Real practice in an association of psychiatric hospitals

Background: Joint crisis plans (JCPs) are offered in many psychiatric hospitals, but patients only rarely make use of them. Objective: To assess the rates of JCPs among inpatients of mental health hospitals and to analyze the clinical characteristics of patients who make use of a JCP. Material and methods: We carried out a retrospective analysis of routine data from the statistical database/basis documentation of the LVR hospital association, which consists of nine psychiatric hospitals. The basis documentation is consistent in the nine hospitals. All admissions between 2016 and 2020 were considered. We recorded the existence of a JCP, age, gender and main diagnosis at release, as well as previous hospital stays, detention under the Mental Health Act of the Federal State of NRW and experiences with compulsory measures (seclusion/restraint) in the previous 24 months before index admission. Results: Out of a total of 117,662 inpatients 467 (0.4%) had completed a JCP. Patients with JCP were more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or emotionally unstable personality disorder. Patients with a JCP had more previous inpatient stays and they had more frequently experienced detentions and compulsory measures. However, 50% of the patients with a JCP had other diagnoses and the vast majority of them had experienced no detention or compulsory measure in the 24 months preceding the first documentation of a JCP. Conclusions: Overall, the use of JCPs is limited. The targeted group of patients with severe mental illness and previous experience with involuntary placements and compulsory measures make use of the offer of a JCP but so do other patients as well. Additional qualitative analyses are required in order to analyze the content and objectives of JCPs in more detail

Um caso de discriminação genética: o traço falciforme no Brasil Genetic Discrimination: sickle cell trait in Brazil

Este artigo discute um caso de discriminação genética envolvendo uma atleta brasileira de voleibol identificada como portadora do traço falciforme. O traço falciforme é uma das características genéticas mais prevalentes na população brasileira, mas não �� descrito como uma doença genética. O avanço da genética clínica vem provocando uma popularização dos testes genéticos em diferentes contextos de promoção da saúde. Ao criticar o argumento da Confederação Brasileira de Vôlei de que o exame para o traço falciforme seria uma medida de proteção à saúde dos atletas, o objetivo do artigo foi demonstrar como a popularização da informação genética não pode prescindir do aconselhamento genético e de garantias éticas. A análise mostrou que a exclusão da atleta da seleção oficial de vôlei não se justificou por medidas de proteção à saúde, mas por discriminação genética.<br>This paper analyses a case of genetic discrimination of a Brazilian volleyball athlete. A routine exam identified the sickle cell trait in her blood. The sickle cell trait is one of the most prevalent genetic information in Brazilian population, but it not considered a genetic disease. The advancement of clinical genetic promotes a popularization of genetic tests in different health care initiatives. The aims of this paper are: 1) to criticize the argument supporting the test for sickle cell trait as a health care initiative; 2) to demonstrate how the popularization of genetic information demands genetic counseling and ethical protections. The analysis demonstrates how the athlete exclusion from the official volleyball team is not supported by medicine and is a case of genetic discrimination