Factors associated with length of stay and the risk of readmission in an acute psychiatric inpatient facility: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE: This study was to investigate factors influencing the length of stay and predictors for the risk of readmission at an acute psychiatric inpatient unit. METHOD: Two comparative studies were embedded in a retrospective cross-sectional clinical file audit. A randomly selected 226 episodes of admissions including 178 patients during a twelve-month period were reviewed. A total of 286 variables were collected and analysed. A case control study was employed in the study of length of stay. A retrospective cohort study was used to investigate the predictors for the risk of readmission. RESULTS: Logistic regression analyses showed that 10 variables were associated with length of stay. Seclusion during the index admission, accommodation problems and living in an area lacking community services predicted longer stay. During the follow-up period 82 patients (46%) were readmitted. Cox regression analyses showed 9 variables were related to the risk of readmission. Six of these variables increased the risk of readmission, including history of previous frequent admission, risk to others at the time of the index admission and alcohol intoxication. More active and assertive treatment in the community post-discharge decreased the risk of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Length of stay is multifactorially determined. Behavioural manifestations of illness and lack of social support structures predicted prolonged length of stay. Good clinical practice did not necessarily translate to a shorter length of stay. Therefore, length of stay is predictable, but not readily modifiable within the clinical domain. Good clinical practice within the community following discharge likely reduces the risk of readmission. Quality of inpatient care does not influence the risk of readmission, which therefore raises a question about the validity of using the rate of readmission as an outcome measure of psychiatric inpatient care

Obesity prevention and personal responsibility: the case of front-of-pack food labelling in Australia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In Australia, the food industry and public health groups are locked in serious struggle for regulatory influence over the terms of front-of-pack food labelling. Clear, unambiguous labelling of the nutritional content of pre-packaged foods and of standardized food items sold in chain restaurants is consistent with the prevailing philosophy of 'personal responsibility'. An interpretive, front-of-pack labelling scheme has the capacity to encourage healthier patterns of eating, and to be a catalyst for improvements in the nutritional quality of food products through re-formulation. On the other hand, the strength of opposition of the Australian Food and Grocery Council to 'Traffic Light Labelling', and its efforts to promote a non-interpretive, voluntary scheme, invite the interpretation that the food industry is resistant to any reforms that could destabilise current (unhealthy) purchasing patterns and the revenues they represent.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This article argues that although policies that aim to educate consumers about the nutritional content of food are welcome, they are only one part of a broader basket of policies that are needed to make progress on obesity prevention and public health nutrition. However, to the extent that food labelling has the capacity to inform and empower consumers to make healthier choices - and to be a catalyst for improving the nutritional quality of commercial recipes - it has an important role to play. Furthermore, given the dietary impact of meals eaten in fast food and franchise restaurants, interpretive labelling requirements should not be restricted to pre-packaged foods.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Food industry resistance to an interpretive food labelling scheme is an important test for government, and a case study of how self-interest prompts industry to promote weaker, voluntary schemes that pre-empt and undermine progressive public health regulation.</p

International planning directions for provision of mental health services

Internationally, there have been calls for more strategic mental health care delivery. For this to occur, individual countries need to define 'core' mental health services and set evidence-based, country-specific resource targets related to these. Via a web search, we identified 32 current mental health plans from five developed countries. We synthesised descriptive information from these documents, in order to compare profiles of 'core' services, resource targets relating to these services, and rationales for these resource targets. Most plans list 'core' clinical services, typically including a mix of inpatient and community services. Only four plans cite resource targets for these 'core' services, and these are difficult to compare due to different definitional and counting rules. All four provide rationales for the targets, though these vary in strength. The challenge remains for individual countries to develop plans that include appropriate resource targets, and to implement initiatives that move them towards these targets