Analysis of Suicides Reported as Adverse Events in Psychiatry Resulted in Nine Quality Improvement Initiatives.

Background: The majority of persons who die by suicide have a mental disorder. Preventive strategies should include addressing social and psychological factors and the treatment of the mental disorder. Aim: We aimed to identify breaches in clinical care and identify areas for quality improvement initiatives. Method: An aggregate analysis of suicides reported as adverse events during 2012-2016 to Psychiatry, North Denmark Region was carried out. We developed an audit chart and identified items through (a) medical chart review and (b) consensus meetings in an expert panel. Results: A total of 35 cases were analyzed. Suicide risk assessments were adequately documented in the medial chart in six of 35 cases. Risk assessments emphasized suicidal ideation rather than well-known risk factors such as previous suicide attempts, substance abuse, physical illness, or job loss. Relatives were involved in four of 35 of the risk assessments. The panel suggested nine areas for quality improvement. Limitations: Most people who die by suicide are not seen in mental health facilities prior to suicide, and hence conclusions can only be generalized to these patients. Information on the gap between "Work-as-Done" and "Work-As-Imagined" was not recognized. Conclusion: Most of the risk assessments among suicides reported as adverse events to our mental health facilities were insufficient. Quality improvement initiatives focusing on training, documentation, involving relatives, communication, and data sharing must be planned to improve clinical care.

[Forensic psychiatric patients in Denmark]. / Retspsykiatriske patienter i Danmark.

INTRODUCTION: In Denmark the number of forensic psychiatric patients is increasing. The objective of this study was to explore whether the increased number of forensic psychiatric patients has been reflected in the use of psychiatric inpatient facilities. Furthermore, we wanted to investigate differences in the treatment of various diagnostic groups of forensic patients and of forensic and non-forensic patients with schizophrenia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information about admissions and outpatient contact was extracted from the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register for all Danish patients sentenced to psychiatric treatment in the period 1994-2003. Furthermore, a group of first-admission forensic patients suffering from schizophrenia was compared to a control group of first-admission non-forensic patients with schizophrenia, matched for sex, age and time of admission. RESULTS: The number of forensic psychiatric patients increased markedly in the period 1994-2003; at the same time, the use of inpatient facilities for this group of patients did not increase to a similar degree but actually decreased. Forensic patients in the group F20-F29 spent more time in hospital than did forensic patients with affective disorders and personality disorders. Forensic psychiatric patients with schizophrenia had significantly longer periods of hospitalization than did non-forensic patients with schizophrenia. CONCLUSION: Forensic psychiatric patients' use of psychiatric inpatient facilities during the last 10 years did not increase to the extent expected relative to the increasing number of forensic psychiatric patients. This raises the question of whether these patients are receiving necessary and sufficient treatment.