Author index for volume 46

Background: Patient satisfaction is an important, but controversial part of health service evaluation. This study dealt with how acknowledgement of illness and treatment needs effected the distribution of positive, neutral and negative evaluations in a group of first time admitted patients to a psychiatric hospital. Method: The participants filled out a standardized user satisfaction form before discharge. The number of positive, neutral and negative evaluations for each participant was calculated and used as dependent variables in analyses (Classification Tree) where acknowledgement of illness (The Patients' Experience of Hospitalisation Questionnaire) and treatment needs (HoNOS) were used as explanatory variables in addition to a number of potential confounders. Results: Different constellations of variables explained the three dependent variables. The number of positive scores was a function of age and worry (PEH); neutral scores were explained by HoNOS rated social needs and GAF (functional scale), both at admission. Outcome (GAF functional scale) and age explained the number of negative scores. Conclusion: (1) Moderately high negative correlations between positive and neutral scores, and between positive and negative scores, together with a positive correlation between the number of negative and neutral ratings was interpreted to mean that neutral scores sometimes function as undercommunicated negative evaluations. These could better be studied by qualitative methods. (2) The worry subscale (PEH) was important in identifying the majority of patients with the highest numbers of positive scores (patients older than 27.5 yrs with high worry score at admission.). The most dissatisfied group was characterised by denial of both mental problems and need for treatment. (3) Patients with high scores on the HoNOS Social subscale had the highest number of neutral scores. To the extent that neutral evaluations have negative connotations, treatment should focus more effectively on the patients' social needs. (4) The smallest number of negative scores was found among older patients with high functional improvement (GAF F). (5) Increasing age consistently predicted higher satisfaction. A better understanding of why younger patients are more dissatisfied is needed

Suicidality related to first-time admissions to psychiatric hospital

The epidemiology of suicidality shows considerable variation across sites. However, one of the strongest predictors of suicide is a suicidal attempt. Knowledge of the epidemiology of suicidal ideas and attempts in the general population as well as in the health care system is of importance for designing preventive strategies. In this study, we will explore the role of the psychiatric hospital in suicide prevention by investigating treated incidence of suicidal ideation and attempt, and further, discern whether sociodemographic, clinical and service utilization factors differ between these two groups at admission. The study was a prospective cohort study on treated incidence in a 1-year period and 12-month follow-up. The two psychiatric hospitals in northern Norway, serving a population of about 500,000 people, participated in the study. A total of 676 first-time admissions were retrospectively checked for suicidality at the time of admission. A study sample of 168 patients was found eligible for logistic regression analysis to elucidate the risk profiles of suicidal ideators versus suicidal attempters. GAF, HoNOS and SCL-90-R were used to assess symptomatology at baseline. 52.2% of all patients admitted had suicidal ideas at admission and 19.7% had attempted suicide. In the study sample, there were no differences in risk profile between the two groups with regard to sociodemographic and clinical factors. Males who had made a suicide attempt were less likely to have been in contact with an out-patient clinic before the attempt. The rating scales not measuring suicidality directly showed no differences in symptomatology. The findings provide evidence for the importance of the psychiatric hospital in suicide prevention. About half of the admissions were related to suicidality and the similar risk profiles found in suicidal ideators and suicidal attempters indicate that it is the ideators who mostly need treatment that get admitted to the hospital, and should be evaluated and treated with equal concern as those who have attempted suicide

Diagnosing comorbidity in psychiatric hospital:challenging the validity of administrative registers

Background This study will explore the validity of psychiatric diagnoses in administrative registers with special emphasis on comorbid anxiety and substance use disorders. Methods All new patients admitted to psychiatric hospital in northern Norway during one year were asked to participate. Of 477 patients found eligible, 272 gave their informed consent. 250 patients (52%) with hospital diagnoses comprised the study sample. Expert diagnoses were given on the basis of a structured diagnostic interview (M.I.N.I.PLUS) together with retrospective checking of the records. The hospital diagnoses were blind to the expert. The agreement between the expert’s and the clinicians’ diagnoses was estimated using Cohen’s kappa statistics. Results The expert gave a mean of 3.4 diagnoses per patient, the clinicians gave 1.4. The agreement ranged from poor to good (schizophrenia). For anxiety disorders (F40-41) the agreement is poor (kappa = 0.12). While the expert gave an anxiety disorder diagnosis to 122 patients, the clinicians only gave it to 17. The agreement is fair concerning substance use disorders (F10-19) (kappa = 0.27). Only two out of 76 patients with concurrent anxiety and substance use disorders were identified by the clinicians. Conclusions The validity of administrative registers in psychiatry seems dubious for research purposes and even for administrative and clinical purposes. The diagnostic process in the clinic should be more structured and treatment guidelines should include comorbidity

Classification of bipolar disorder in psychiatric hospital. a prospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study has explored the classification of bipolar disorder in psychiatric hospital. A review of the literature reveals that there is a need for studies using stringent methodological approaches.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>480 first-time admitted patients to psychiatric hospital were found eligible and 271 of these gave written informed consent. The study sample was comprised of 250 patients (52%) with hospital diagnoses. For the study, expert diagnoses were given on the basis of a structured diagnostic interview (M.I.N.I.PLUS) and retrospective review of patient records.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Agreement between the expert's and the clinicians' diagnoses was estimated using Cohen's kappa statistics. 76% of the primary diagnoses given by the expert were in the affective spectrum. Agreement concerning these disorders was moderate (kappa ranging from 0.41 to 0.47). Of 58 patients with bipolar disorder, only 17 received this diagnosis in the clinic. Almost all patients with a current manic episode were classified as currently manic by the clinicians. Forty percent diagnosed as bipolar by the expert, received a diagnosis of unipolar depression by the clinician. Fifteen patients (26%) were not given a diagnosis of affective disorder at all.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results indicate a considerable misclassification of bipolar disorder in psychiatric hospital, mainly in patients currently depressed. The importance of correctly diagnosing bipolar disorder should be emphasized both for clinical, administrative and research purposes. The findings questions the validity of psychiatric case registers. There are potential benefits in structuring the diagnostic process better in the clinic.</p

Outpatient clinics treating substance use disorders in Northwest Russia and Northern Norway: a descriptive comparative study

Both in Norway and Russia a considerable portion of the population have substance use disorders. However, the knowledge about outpatient services treating substance use disorders in Norway and Russia is limited. This study will describe and compare outpatient clinics treating substance use disorders in Arkhangelsk in Northwest Russia and in Bodø and Tromsø in Northern Norway on availability, accessibility and treated prevalence (patients treated in one year). The managers (N=3) of the outpatient clinics (N=3) were interviewed with the European Service Mapping Schedule (ESMS) and the International Classification of Mental Health Care (ICMHC). The interviews were supplemented by e-mail and phone calls. The treatment in Arkhangelsk was mainly biologically oriented (medical), while a greater variety of methods was available in Bodø and Tromsø. The clinic in Russia was a drop-in clinic, while in Norway patients needed a referral to get an appointment in the clinic. Patients treated in Arkhangelsk (treated prevalence) was 1662, while in Bodø it was 233 and in Tromsø 220. The present study revealed great differences between the clinics involved in accessibility, availability and treated prevalence. Cultural traditions and budgeting of the mental health care system could explain some of the findings

Between health care and social security : psychiatric patients and the disability pension system in Norway and Russia

Background: The official statistics of persons with mental disorders who are granted disability pension (DP) in Russia and Norway indicate large differences between the countries. Methods: This qualitative explorative hypothesis-generating study is based on text analysis of the laws, regulations and guidelines, and qualitative interviews of informants representing all the organisational elements of the DP systems in both countries. Results: The DP application process is initiated much later in Norway than in Russia, where a 3 year occupational rehabilitation and adequate treatment is mandatory before DP is granted. In Russia, two instances are responsible for preparing of the medical certification for DP, a patients medical doctor (PD) and a clinical expert commission (CEC) while there is one in Norway (PD). In Russia, the Bureau of Medical-Social Expertise is responsible for evaluation and granting of DP. In Norway, the local social insurance offices (SIO) are responsible for the DP application. Decisions are taken collectively in Russia, while the Norwegian PD and SIO officer often take decisions alone. In Russia, the medical criterion is the decisive one, while rehabilitation and treatment criteria are given priority in Norway. The size of the DP in Norway is enough to cover of subsistences expenditure, while the Russian DP is less than the level required for minimum subsistence. Conclusion: There were noteworthy differences in the time frame, organisation model and process leading to a DP in the two countries. These differences may explain why so few patients with less severe mental disorders receive a DP in Russia. This fact, in combination with the size of the DP, may hamper reforms of the mental health care system in Russia

Diagnosing comorbidity in psychiatric hospital:challenging the validity of administrative registers

Background This study will explore the validity of psychiatric diagnoses in administrative registers with special emphasis on comorbid anxiety and substance use disorders. Methods All new patients admitted to psychiatric hospital in northern Norway during one year were asked to participate. Of 477 patients found eligible, 272 gave their informed consent. 250 patients (52%) with hospital diagnoses comprised the study sample. Expert diagnoses were given on the basis of a structured diagnostic interview (M.I.N.I.PLUS) together with retrospective checking of the records. The hospital diagnoses were blind to the expert. The agreement between the expert’s and the clinicians’ diagnoses was estimated using Cohen’s kappa statistics. Results The expert gave a mean of 3.4 diagnoses per patient, the clinicians gave 1.4. The agreement ranged from poor to good (schizophrenia). For anxiety disorders (F40-41) the agreement is poor (kappa = 0.12). While the expert gave an anxiety disorder diagnosis to 122 patients, the clinicians only gave it to 17. The agreement is fair concerning substance use disorders (F10-19) (kappa = 0.27). Only two out of 76 patients with concurrent anxiety and substance use disorders were identified by the clinicians. Conclusions The validity of administrative registers in psychiatry seems dubious for research purposes and even for administrative and clinical purposes. The diagnostic process in the clinic should be more structured and treatment guidelines should include comorbidity

Diagnosing comorbidity in psychiatric hospital: challenging the validity of administrative registers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study will explore the validity of psychiatric diagnoses in administrative registers with special emphasis on comorbid anxiety and substance use disorders.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All new patients admitted to psychiatric hospital in northern Norway during one year were asked to participate. Of 477 patients found eligible, 272 gave their informed consent. 250 patients (52%) with hospital diagnoses comprised the study sample. Expert diagnoses were given on the basis of a structured diagnostic interview (M.I.N.I.PLUS) together with retrospective checking of the records. The hospital diagnoses were blind to the expert. The agreement between the expert’s and the clinicians’ diagnoses was estimated using Cohen’s kappa statistics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The expert gave a mean of 3.4 diagnoses per patient, the clinicians gave 1.4. The agreement ranged from poor to good (schizophrenia). For anxiety disorders (F40-41) the agreement is poor (kappa = 0.12). While the expert gave an anxiety disorder diagnosis to 122 patients, the clinicians only gave it to 17. The agreement is fair concerning substance use disorders (F10-19) (kappa = 0.27). Only two out of 76 patients with concurrent anxiety and substance use disorders were identified by the clinicians.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The validity of administrative registers in psychiatry seems dubious for research purposes and even for administrative and clinical purposes. The diagnostic process in the clinic should be more structured and treatment guidelines should include comorbidity.</p