[Inpatient Equivalent Home Treatment (IEHT) compared to inpatient psychiatric treatment: 12-month follow-up results of a retrospectively matched cohort study using propensity score]. / Stationsäquivalente Behandlung (StäB) im Vergleich mit vollstationärer Behandlung: 12-Monats-Follow-up Ergebnisse einer mittels Propensity-Score gematchten retrospektiven Kohortenstudie.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Comparison of psychiatric services use in the 12-month follow-up period between Inpatient Equivalent Home Treatment (IEHT) and inpatient psychiatric treatment. METHODS: In a retrospective 12-month follow-up study, 223 patients from the Inpatient Equivalent Home Treatment (IEHT) intervention group (IG) were compared to a matched inpatient control group (CG) on their utilization of psychiatric services. RESULTS: The inpatient readmission rate in the IG was significantly 11% lower than in the CG. The number of treatment days in the IG was significantly lower than in the CG. In the IG, psychiatric services at the outpatient clinic were used significantly more often for the first time than in the CG. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that IEHT is superior to inpatient treatment in terms of the risk of inpatient readmission and the duration of inpatient treatment days. An outpatient services use effect following IEHT is observed.

Implementation of guidelines on prevention of coercion and violence (PreVCo) in psychiatry: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Background: Interventions to prevent the use of coercion in psychiatric hospitals have been summarized in the 2018 German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatic's comprehensive guidelines. Twelve recommendations for implementation of these guideline on psychiatric wards have been deducted and their feasibility has been tested in a pilot study, using external implementation consultants as facilitators. The objective of the PreVCo study was to test their effect in a randomised clinical trial. Methods: Fifty-four psychiatric wards in Germany treating voluntary and involuntary patients were randomly allocated to either an intervention or to a waiting list condition. The intervention consisted of the implementation of three out of 12 suggested recommendations as selected by the ward teams, supported by external study workers. As the primary outcome measure, the number of coercive measures used per bed and month in the final 3 months of the intervention period was determined. Secondary outcomes were the cumulative duration of coercive measures used per bed and months and assaults per bed and month. Achieved guideline adherence was measured by a fidelity scale developed for this purpose during a pilot study for the PreVCo Rating Tool. After a 3-month baseline collection period under routine conditions, randomisation was done after matching wards pairwise according to frequency of coercive measures used and scores on the PreVCo Rating Tool at baseline. The duration of the intervention period was 12 months; control wards received only an initial workshop presentation of the study and completed their PreVCo ratings. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the paired t-test and conducted sensitivity analyses for different periods of observation. Findings: Neither the number of coercive measures used per month and bed nor their cumulative duration nor the number of assaults per bed and months differed significantly between the 27 intervention wards and the 27 control wards in the final 3 months of the intervention period. The median number of coercive measures used decreased by 45% (median 0.96 (IQR 1.34)-0.53 (IQR 0.59) from baseline until the end of the intervention period on the intervention wards and by 28% (median 0.98 (IQR 1.71)-0.71 (IQR 1.08) on waiting list wards. The PreVCo Rating Tool showed a significant improvement in intervention wards compared to control wards, indicating a successful implementation. Interpretation: The study demonstrated that guideline adherence could be significantly improved by the intervention. However, there was no evidence for an effect on the frequency or duration of coercive measures used. Spill-over effects and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on in-patient care might have limited the effect of the intervention. Further research from robust randomised controlled trials are necessary to identify effective interventions to reduce the use of coercion in psychiatric hospitals. Funding: The study was funded by the German Innovationsfonds beim Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (project no. 01VSF19037). The funder had no role in study design or data collection.

Implementation of guidelines on prevention of coercion and violence: baseline data of the randomized controlled PreVCo study.

Introduction: The PreVCo study examines whether a structured, operationalized implementation of guidelines to prevent coercion actually leads to fewer coercive measures on psychiatric wards. It is known from the literature that rates of coercive measures differ greatly between hospitals within a country. Studies on that topic also showed large Hawthorne effects. Therefore, it is important to collect valid baseline data for the comparison of similar wards and controlling for observer effects. Methods: Fifty five psychiatric wards in Germany treating voluntary and involuntary patients were randomly allocated to an intervention or a waiting list condition in matched pairs. As part of the randomized controlled trial, they completed a baseline survey. We collected data on admissions, occupied beds, involuntarily admitted cases, main diagnoses, the number and duration of coercive measures, assaults and staffing levels. We applied the PreVCo Rating Tool for each ward. The PreVCo Rating Tool is a fidelity rating, measuring the degree of implementation of 12 guideline-linked recommendations on Likert scales with a range of 0-135 points covering the main elements of the guidelines. Aggregated data on the ward level is provided, with no patient data provided. We performed a Wilcoxon signed-rank-test to compare intervention group and waiting list control group at baseline and to assess the success of randomization. Results: The participating wards had an average of 19.9% involuntarily admitted cases and a median 19 coercive measures per month (1 coercive measure per occupied bed, 0.5 per admission). The intervention group and waiting list group were not significantly different in these measurements. There were 6.0 assaults per month on average (0.3 assaults per occupied bed and 0.1 per admission). The PreVCo Rating Tool for guideline fidelity varied between 28 and 106 points. The percentage of involuntarily admitted cases showed a correlation with coercive measures per month and bed (Spearman's Rho = 0.56, p < 0.01). Discussion: Our findings that coercion varies widely within a country and mainly is associated with involuntarily admitted and aggressive patients are in line with the international literature. We believe that we included a sample that covers the scope of mental health care practice in Germany well.Clinical trial registration: www.isrctn.com, identifier ISRCTN71467851.

Predictors of the use of restraint in inpatient psychiatric care among patients admitted via the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Coercive measures are associated with negative consequences for both patients and hospital staff. The aim of the study was to identify predictors for the use of restraints in the emergency department and in subsequent inpatient care. METHOD: Retrospective routine clinical data of all patients admitted to the psychiatric departments of Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban in Berlin via the emergency department in 2019 was examined case-wise (n = 2584) as well as patient-wise (n = 2118). RESULTS: Of all cases admitted via the emergency department, 195 cases (7.5%) experienced restraints and restraints combined with drug sedation during their inpatient treatment. Of the 2584 cases admitted via the emergency department, 195 cases (7.5%) experienced restraints and restraints combined with drug sedation during their inpatient treatment. These 195 cases experienced a total of 358 restraints and were distributed across 159 individuals. Multivariate regression analyses on patient-level show that age (p < .001), judicial placement (p < .001), and police referral in the presence of others (p < .001) had a statistically significant effect on the use of restraint. DISCUSSION: The results indicate that certain patient characteristics increase the risk of restraints. A majority of the findings of this study underline previous research findings. However, ICD-10 diagnosis and gender do not prove to be significant variables, contrary to expectations based on previous.

[Comparison of Inpatient Equivalent Home Treatment (IEHT) with Standard Inpatient Treatment: A Matched Cohort Study]. / Stationsäquivalente Behandlung (StäB) im Vergleich mit vollstationärer Behandlung: 12-Monats-Follow-up einer gematchten Kohortenstudie.

OBJECTIVE: Effectiveness of Inpatient Equivalent Home Treatment (IEHT) was examined in comparison to standard psychiatric inpatient treatment. IEHT is similar to the internationally known Home Treatment or Crisis Resolution Teams. It provides acute psychiatric treatment at the user's home, similar to inpatient hospital treatment in terms of content, flexibility, and complexity. METHODS: This retrospective matched control study used routine data of 86 patients (IEHT, n = 43, standard inpatient treatment n = 43). Readmission rates and cumulative hospital days were compared within a 12-month-follow-up time period. RESULTS: The readmission rate was lower and cumulative treatment days were longer after IETH. However, both group differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The present study indicates that IEHT is not inferior to standard inpatient treatment in terms of the risk of readmission.

[Evidence on the effects of crisis resolution teams, home treatment and assertive outreach for people with mental disorders in Germany, Austria and Switzerland - a systematic review]. / Evidenz zu aufsuchender Behandlung bei Menschen mit psychischen Störungen in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz ­ eine systematische Übersichtsarbeit.

BACKGROUND: Based on international randomized controlled trials (RCT) the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN) recommends acute treatment in the domestic environment (AHU) and intensive outreach treatment (IAB) with the highest level of evidence; however, due to large differences in national healthcare systems the transference of results from international studies to the healthcare systems in Germany, Austria and Switzerland could be limited. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of studies on outreach psychiatric treatment forms in Germany, Austria and Switzerland and discussion of the results in the light of international evidence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search for clinical trials on outreach community treatment from Germany, Austria and Switzerland was conducted in the PubMed database. RESULTS: A total of 19 publications were identified which could be assigned to 5 publications on 4 studies with 2857 patients on AHU and 14 publications on 10 studies with 3207 patients on IAB. The studies on AHU showed this treatment form to be superior regarding the duration of inpatient stay and healthcare costs. The studies on IAB showed more positive outcomes in comparison to controls regarding symptoms, severity of illness, substance abuse, functioning level, remission, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, healthcare costs, work and housing situations. CONCLUSION: The studies from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland suggest that outreach community treatment is superior regarding several outcome parameters. Thus, there are no indications suggesting that international evidence could not be valid for these countries. Additionally, with one RCT for AHU and one for IAB the requirements for an evidence level of 1b for outreach community treatment in the healthcare systems in question are fulfilled.

[DGPPN pilot study on the implementation of the S3 guideline "Prevention of coercion: prevention and therapy of aggressive behavior in adults"]. / DGPPN-Pilotstudie zur Implementierung der S3-Leitlinie "Verhinderung von Zwang: Prävention und Therapie aggressiven Verhaltens bei Erwachsenen".

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether implementation recommendations derived from the German guidelines "Prevention of coercion" can be implemented on acute psychiatric wards by means of implementation consultants into ward work and if this contributes to an increased level of adherence to guideline intervention recommendations approved by the DGPPN (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde)? MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two medical or nursing experts advised ward teams on the implementation of three individually selected recommendations from the guidelines in a structured consulting process over 6 months. The degree of implementation of the recommendations was assessed before and after the intervention by the ward teams together with the implementation consultants using a tool developed for this purpose (PreVCo rating tool). RESULTS: A total of five wards responsible for compulsorily admitted patients took part in the pilot study; three of them completed the intervention. On all three wards, implementation of the guideline recommendations improved for both selected and unselected recommendations. The strategy of using implementation consultants as well as the application of the PreVCo rating tool were well accepted and considered feasible by both the treatment teams and the implementation consultants. CONCLUSION: This pilot study showed that an implementation of recommendations on psychiatric wards derived from the German guidelines "Prevention of coercion" supported by implementation consultants is feasible, well acceptable among treatment teams and can lead to positive changes. The sample of five wards with diverse patient profiles was convincing. The efficacy in terms of reduction of coercive measures is currently being investigated in a randomized controlled trial on 55 psychiatric wards in different parts of Germany, with an intervention based on this pilot study.

Implementation of Guidelines on Prevention of Coercion and Violence (PreVCo) in Psychiatry: Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Coercive measures are among the most controversial interventions in psychiatry. There is a large discrepancy between the sheer number of high-quality guidelines and the small number of scientifically accompanied initiatives to promote and evaluate their implementation into clinical routine. In Germany, an expert group developed guidelines to provide evidence- and consensus-based recommendations on how to deal with violence and coercion in psychiatry. METHODS: The study presented examines whether coercive measures on psychiatric wards can be reduced by means of an operationalized implementation of the guidelines "Prevention of coercion: prevention and therapy of aggressive behavior in adults". Out of a set of 12 interventions offered, wards are free to choose three interventions they want to implement. The primary outcome is the number of coercive measures per bed and month/year. Secondary outcomes are cumulative duration of coercive measures per bed and month/year. The most important control variable is the number of aggressive incidents. We plan to recruit 52 wards in Germany. Wards treating both voluntary and compulsorily admitted patients will be included. A 1:1 stratified randomized controlled trial will be conducted stratified by the amount of coercive measures and implemented aspects of the guidelines. In addition to the control group analysis, a waiting list design allows a pre-post analysis for all participating wards of the waiting list group. A parallel qualitative study will examine factors related to successful implementation and to successful reduction of coercion as well as relevant barriers. DISCUSSION: We are planning a nationwide study on the implementation of evidence- and consensus-based guidelines in psychiatric hospitals. This study intends to promote the transfer of expert knowledge as well as results from clinical trials into clinical routine with the potential to change supply structures in mental health sector. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.isrctn.com, identifier ISRCTN71467851.