Boarding of Mentally Ill Patients in Emergency Departments: American Psychiatric Association Resource Document.

The treatment of severe mental illness has undergone a paradigm shift over the last fifty years, away from a primary emphasis on hospital-based care and toward community-based care. Some of the forces driving this deinstitutionalization have been scientific and patient-centered, such as better differentiation between acute and subacute risk, innovations in outpatient and crisis care (assertive community treatment programs, dialectical behavioral therapy, treatment-oriented psychiatric emergency services), gradually improving psychopharmacology, and an increased appreciation of the negative effect of coercive hospitalization, except when risk is very high. On the other hand, some of the forces have been less focused on patient needs: budget-driven cuts in public hospital beds divorced from population-based need; managed care's profit-driven impact on private psychiatric hospitals and outpatient services; and purported patient-centered approaches promoting non-hospital care that may under-recognize that some extremely ill patients need years of painstaking effort to make a community transition. The result has been a reconfiguration of the country's mental health system that, at times, leaves large numbers of people without adequate mental health and substance abuse services. Often their only option is to seek care in medical emergency department's (ED's) that are not designed for their needs. Increasingly, many of those individuals end up waiting in ED's for appropriate care and disposition for hours or days. This overflow phenomenon has become so prevalent in ED's that it has been given a name: "boarding". This practice is almost certainly detrimental to patients and staff, and it has spawned efforts on multiple fronts to understand and resolve it. When considering solutions, both ED-focused and system-wide considerations must be explored. This resource document provides an overview and recommendations regarding this complex topic. Reprinted with permission from American Psychiatric Association. Copyright © 2019.

A Provider Perspective of Psychosocial Predictors of Upper-Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation Success.

PURPOSE: We performed a qualitative study to understand the psychosocial factors associated with success in upper-extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation from the perspective of transplant providers. METHODS: We recruited 13 providers actively involved in upper-extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation. Participants included physicians, nurses, social workers, occupational therapists, and research administrators. We conducted semistructured face-to-face focus group interviews using a guide that explored providers' perceptions of qualities contributing to transplant outcome. Topics included social support networks and their influence on recovery, barriers to treatment compliance and successful posttransplant rehabilitation, and the process of setting patients' expectations. We performed a thematic analysis that produced a list of themes, subthemes, and proposed hypotheses explaining how the themes related to the study's guiding questions. RESULTS: The analysis identified numerous factors that contribute to transplant success: (1) recipients' prior experiences modify their ability to cope and adapt after transplantation, (2) behaviors and characteristics such as positivity influence candidacy and may be predictive of successful outcomes, and (3) social support is essential for improved function and compliance. The provider care team cited difficulty in predicting recipient compliance and in setting realistic expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Motivated recipients with developed coping and resiliency, a positive attitude, and stable, physically-able caregivers are perceived by providers to have greater success after transplantation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Findings from this work may help providers determine optimal candidates for upper-extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation.

Performance of crisis standards of care guidelines in a cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the United States.

Many US states published crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines for allocating scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the performance of these guidelines in maximizing their population benefit has not been well tested. In 2,272 adults with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation drawn from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 (STOP-COVID) multicenter cohort, we test the following three approaches to CSC algorithms: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores grouped into ranges, SOFA score ranges plus comorbidities, and a hypothetical approach using raw SOFA scores not grouped into ranges. We find that area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves for all three algorithms demonstrate only modest discrimination for 28-day mortality. Adding comorbidity scoring modestly improves algorithm performance over SOFA scores alone. The algorithm incorporating comorbidities has modestly worse predictive performance for Black compared to white patients. CSC algorithms should be empirically examined to refine approaches to the allocation of scarce resources during pandemics and to avoid potential exacerbation of racial inequities.

Proactive Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry: American Psychiatric Association Resource Document.

In 2019, the American Psychiatric Association Council on Consultation-Liaison (C-L) Psychiatry convened a work group to develop a resource document on proactive C-L psychiatry. A draft of this document was reviewed by the Council in July 2020, and a revised version was approved by this Council in September 2020. The accepted version was subsequently reviewed by the American Psychiatric Association Council on Health Care Systems and Financing in November 2020. The final version was approved by the Joint Reference Committee on November 24, 2020, and received approval for publication by the Board of Trustees on December 12, 2020. This resource document describes the historical context and modern trends that have given rise to the model of proactive C-L psychiatry. Styled as an inpatient corollary to outpatient collaborative care models, proactive C-L provides a framework of mental health care delivery in the general hospital designed to enhance mental health services to a broad range of patients. Its 4 elements include systematic screening for active mental health concerns, proactive interventions tailored to individual patients, team-based care delivery, and care integration with primary teams and services. Studies have found that proactive C-L psychiatry is associated with reduced hospital length of stay, enhanced psychiatric service utilization, reduced time to psychiatric consultation, and improved provider and nurse satisfaction. These favorable results encourage further studies that replicate and build upon these findings. Additional outcomes such as patient experience, health outcomes, and readmission rates deserve investigation. Further studies are also needed to examine a broader array of team compositions and the potential value of proactive C-L psychiatry to different hospital settings such as community hospitals, surgery, and critical care.

Perceived Success in Upper-Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: We performed a qualitative study to understand psychosocial factors associated with perceived success of upper-extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA). We interviewed transplant recipients and their primary caregivers. METHODS: We recruited 4 upper-extremity VCA recipients and primary caregivers for 3 of them. We conducted semistructured face-to-face interviews using a guide that explored participants' transplantation experiences. Topics included comparison of pretransplant and posttransplant expectations, reflections on factors contributing to the success of the transplant experience, and posttransplant rehabilitation and functioning. We performed a thematic analysis that produced a list of themes, subthemes, and proposed hypotheses explaining how the themes related to the study's guiding questions. RESULTS: Participants described several factors as contributing to the success of the transplant experience, including developing realistic expectations about posttransplant function and lifelong immunosuppression, support from one's community and particularly the primary caregiver, and framing the experience in a positive light. Social, aesthetic, and other values unique to the hands, as opposed to prosthetics, motivated recipients to undergo VCA despite its inherent risk and uncertainties. CONCLUSIONS: Despite inherent challenges, undergoing VCA was viewed as worthwhile to regain benefits unique to hands. Participants met the challenges of the transplant process through setting realistic expectations, strong social support, and a positive perspective. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Findings from this work may help clinicians and prospective patients to prepare for and set appropriate expectations of VCA.

Factors Affecting Psychiatry Resident Decision to Pursue Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry or Other Subspecialty Fellowship Training.

BACKGROUND: There is a national shortage of psychiatrists with subspecialty fellowship training, and many fellowship positions are unfilled. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a survey of US psychiatry residents to better understand the motivation to pursue fellowship training and to determine any specific factors that were particularly influential in choosing a fellowship in consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatry. METHODS: Online surveys were distributed electronically to US general psychiatry residents through the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training list server. RESULTS: A total of 219 questionnaires were completed. Interest in fellowship declined during residency training. Most important factors in consideration of fellowship training were lifestyle (89%), finances (69%), and academic opportunities (63%). Specific influential factors were residency experiences, attending staff as a role model, and medical school experiences. Most important discouraging factors were extra training time, financial concerns, and belief that fellowship training was not necessary. Only 30% of residents had outpatient C-L psychiatry experiences. Few residents belonged to any subspecialty organization or attended any subspecialty meeting. Residents interested in C-L psychiatry fellowships had lower expectation of increased salary than other residents. Outpatient practice settings were seen as preferable over inpatient settings by most residents. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this survey suggest that enhancing consultation psychiatry exposure in medical school and residency with strong role models, outpatient C-L psychiatry experiences, facilitating subspecialty organization membership and meeting attendance, emphasizing academic opportunities of fellowship training, and improving remuneration for fellowship-trained psychiatrists might be important factors that could improve recruitment into C-L psychiatry and other psychiatric fellowships.

Duties toward Patients with Psychiatric Illness.

Patients with psychiatric illness feel the brunt of the intersection of many of our society's and our health care system's disparities, and the vulnerability of this population during the Covid-19 pandemic cannot be overstated. Patients with psychiatric illness often suffer from the stigma of mental illness and receive poor medical care. Many patients with severe and persistent mental illness face additional barriers, including poverty, marginal housing, and food insecurity. Patients who require psychiatric hospitalization now face the risk of transmission of Covid-19 due to the inherent difficulties of social distancing within a psychiatric hospital. Patients whose freedom and self-determination have been temporarily overruled as they receive involuntary psychiatric treatment deserve a setting that maintains their health and safety. While tele-mental health has been rapidly expanded to provide new ways to access psychiatric treatment, some patients may have limitations in technological literacy or access to devices. The social isolation, economic fallout, and potential traumatization related to the current pandemic will disproportionately affect this vulnerable population, and society's duties to them must be considered.

Virtual monitoring of suicide risk in the general hospital and emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether continuous virtual monitoring, an intervention that facilitates patient observation through video technology, can be used to monitor suicide risk in the general hospital and emergency department (ED). METHOD: This was a retrospective analysis of a protocol in which select patients on suicide precautions in the general hospital and ED received virtual monitoring between June 2017 and March 2018. The primary outcome was the number of adverse events among patients who received virtual monitoring for suicide risk. Secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients for whom virtual monitoring was discontinued for behavioral reasons and the preference for observation type among nurses. RESULTS: 39 patients on suicide precautions received virtual monitoring. There were 0 adverse events (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.000-0.090). Virtual monitoring was discontinued for behavioral reasons in 4/38 cases for which the reason for terminating was recorded (0.105, 95%CI = 0.029-0.248). We were unable to draw conclusions regarding preference for observation type among nurses due to a low response rate to our survey. CONCLUSIONS: Suicide risk can feasibly be monitored virtually in the general hospital or ED when their providers carefully select patients for low impulsivity risk.

Boarding of Mentally Ill Patients in Emergency Departments: American Psychiatric Association Resource Document.

The treatment of severe mental illness has undergone a paradigm shift over the last 50 years, away from a primary emphasis on hospital-based care and toward community-based care. Some of the forces driving this deinstitutionalization have been scientific and patient-centered, such as better differentiation between acute and subacute risk, innovations in outpatient and crisis care (assertive community treatment programs, dialectical behavioral therapy, treatment-oriented psychiatric emergency services), gradually improving psychopharmacology, and an increased appreciation of the negative effect of coercive hospitalization, except when risk is very high. On the other hand, some of the forces have been less focused on patient needs: budget-driven cuts in public hospital beds divorced from population-based need; managed care's profit-driven impact on private psychiatric hospitals and outpatient services; and purported patient-centered approaches promoting non-hospital care that may under-recognize that some extremely ill patients need years of painstaking effort to make a community transition.The result has been a reconfiguration of the country's mental health system that, at times, leaves large numbers of people without adequate mental health and substance abuse services. Often their only option is to seek care in medical emergency departments (ED) that have not been designed for the needs of mentally ill patients. Increasingly, many of those individuals end up waiting in EDs for appropriate care and disposition for hours or days. This overflow phenomenon has become so prevalent that it has been given a name: "boarding." This practice is almost certainly detrimental to patients and staff, and it has spawned efforts on multiple fronts to understand and resolve it. When considering solutions, both ED-focused and systemwide considerations must be explored. This resource document provides an overview and recommendations regarding this complex topic.

Clinical Severity Alone Does Not Determine Disposition Decisions for Patients in the Emergency Department with Suicide Risk.

BACKGROUND: Boarding of patients with suicide risk in emergency departments (EDs) negatively affects both patients and society. Factors other than clinical severity may frequently preclude safe outpatient dispositions among suicidal patients boarding for psychiatric admission in the ED. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which nonclinical factors preclude safe outpatient discharge from the ED among patients boarding for psychiatric admission based on suicide risk. METHODS: A survey regarding the importance of 13 clinical and 19 nonclinical barriers to safe outpatient disposition was administered in the ED to 40 adults who were determined by psychiatrists to require inpatient level of psychiatric care due to suicide risk. A second survey regarding whether addressing the nonclinical factors would have enabled a safe outpatient disposition in each case was administered to the psychiatrists who evaluated each patient participant. RESULTS: Out of 40 patient participants, 39 cited at least one nonclinical factor that could have enabled a safe outpatient disposition had it been correctable in the ED. According to the psychiatrists who made the decision to hospitalize, 10 (25%) of the patient participants could have been discharged had social support become available. CONCLUSION: Both clinical and nonclinical factors affect disposition from the ED after an evaluation for suicide risk. Attention to nonclinical factors should be considered in programmatic efforts to reduce ED boarding of patients with suicide risk.

Psychiatry department response to the Boston Marathon bombings within a level-1 trauma center.

In this article we present how the consultation-liaison and psychology divisions of an academic medical center's Department of Psychiatry responded in the first week after the Boston Marathon bombings, specifically in the context of disaster response guidelines and evidence-based approaches to acute trauma. Since the department had to address several complicated matters at multiple levels within the hospital system, we highlight unexpected issues unique to this particular event as they arose within the primary domains of our involvement. This article aims to (1) provide a descriptive analysis of how we enacted disaster and trauma guidelines and evidence-based care within a hospital setting, (2) shed light on the unique and unexpected administrative and systemic issues encountered in our response, and (3) discuss lessons learned, including opportunities to improve trauma-related care.