Injuries Sustained During Incarceration Among Prisoners.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. prison population has increased substantially in recent years, and violent injury is common among prisoners. We sought to describe injury patterns and other characteristics of prisoners who presented to a trauma center after injury. Because penetrating trauma from an improvised weapon (e.g., shank) is frequent, we also sought to compare characteristics and outcomes of prisoners and non-prisoners who sustained an anterior abdominal stab or shank wound (AASW). METHODS: We analyzed injured adult prisoners who presented to a Level 1 trauma center between February, 2011, and April, 2017. We described characteristics of the injured prisoners and their hospitalizations. We compared prisoners who sustained an AASW to a random sample of non-prisoners with the same mechanism of injury using the chi-square test, Student's t-test, and logistic and Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of 14,461 hospitalized injured adults, 299 (2.0%) were injured while incarcerated. 185 (62%) encounters involved interpersonal violence and 36 prisoners (12%) presented with self-inflicted injuries. 98 (33%) had a psychiatric disorder. Among 33 prisoners and 66 non-prisoners who sustained an AASW, prisoners were less likely to have undergone a laparotomy [14/33 (42%) vs 44/66 (67%); RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.41-0.98)] or sustained an injury requiring operative intervention [2/33 (6%) vs 23/66 (35%); RR 0.17 (95% CI 0.04-0.69)]. CONCLUSIONS: Many injured prisoners have psychiatric illness, are involved in interpersonal violence, or harm themselves. Among hospitalized patients, abdominal stab/shank wounds sustained in prison are less likely to result in significant injuries or operative intervention than similar wounds in non-prisoners.

Asynchronous Telepsychiatry Interviewer Training Recommendations: A Model for Interdisciplinary, Integrated Behavioral Health Care.

Objective: Asynchronous telepsychiatry (ATP) is an integrative model of behavioral health service delivery that is applicable in a variety of settings and populations, particularly consultation in primary care. This article outlines the development of a training model for ATP clinician skills. Methods: Clinical and procedural training for ATP clinicians (n = 5) was provided by master's-level, clinical mental health providers developed by three experienced telepsychiatrists (P.Y. D.H., and J.S) and supervised by a tele-psychiatrist (PY, GX, DL) through seminar, case supervision, and case discussions. A training manual and one-on-one sessions were employed for initial training. Unstructured expert discussion and feedback sessions were conducted in the training phase of the study in year 1 and annually thereafter over the remaining 4 years of the study. The notes gathered during those sessions were synthesized into themes to gain a summary of the study telepsychiatrist training recommendations for ATP interviewers. Results: Expert feedback and discussion revealed three overarching themes of recommended skill sets for ATP interviewers: (1) comprehensive skills in brief psychiatric interviewing, (2) adequate knowledge base of behavioral health conditions and therapeutic techniques, and (3) clinical documentation, integrated care/consultation practices, and e-competency skill sets. The model of training and skill requirements from expert feedback sessions included these three skill sets. Technology training recommendations were also identified and included: (1) awareness of privacy/confidentiality for electronic data gathering, storage, management, and sharing; (2) technology troubleshooting; and (3) video filming/retrieval. Conclusions: We describe and provide a suggested training model for the use of ATP integrated behavioral health. The training needs for ATP clinicians were assessed on a limited convenience sample of experts and clinicians, and more rigorous studies of training for ATP and other technology-focused, behavioral health services are needed. Clinical Trials number: NCT03538860.

Parameters of consultee satisfaction with inpatient academic psychiatric consultation services: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Consultation-liaison psychiatrists commonly perceive consultee satisfaction as a useful global measure of consultation-liaison service performance. No tool exists to measure consultee satisfaction. A single-site study at Columbia University Medical Center elicited ratings of parameters importantly contributing to consultee satisfaction within consultation-liaison services. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the generalizability of the rating of importance of these parameters in a larger, multicenter sample. METHODS: From October 2013 to January 2014, a confidential and voluntary Web-based survey was distributed to 133 physicians at 7 academic centers in the United States asking them to rate the importance of 16 performance parameters (identified in the previous single-site study) in determining consultee satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall, 87 recipients (65%) responded to the survey. Among all the 16 items, there was no significant difference between sites in ratings of item importance. Of the 16 parameters, 9 received a mean rating in the "important" to "very important" range. Three items, "completion of consultation within 24 hours of request," "understanding the core questions being asked," and "practical and helpful management suggestions for medical staff" were rated as the most important. Quickly managing behavioral problems, management suggestions for nursing staff, verbal communication of recommendations, providing diagnostic clarification, facilitating transfer to inpatient psychiatry, and providing follow-up consultation were other parameters that were highly valued by consultees. CONCLUSIONS: We found good generalizability across academic medical centers for ratings of parameters important for consultee satisfaction with consultation-liaison services, which can provide the basis for a consultee satisfaction measurement tool.

Delirium: sifting through the confusion.

Delirium is commonly encountered in the hospital setting, particularly in the intensive care unit. However, the diagnosis is often missed, due in part to the nature of the illness, fluctuating levels of consciousness, and varied presentation. Even when it is recognized, delirium can be hard to manage, with multiple factors contributing to its course. In this article, we review the latest information regarding the underlying mechanisms of the syndrome and treatment options available. This is accomplished by examining two complex cases encountered at a university medical center-based psychosomatic service.

A case of alcohol withdrawal requiring 1,600 mg of lorazepam in 24 hours.

Alcohol withdrawal continues to present significant morbidity and mortality in hospitalized medical/surgical patients. The authors present a case of a patient with delirium tremens requiring up to 1,600 mg/day of lorazepam and discuss alternative treatments for alcohol withdrawal.

A prospective observational study of decisional capacity determinations in an academic medical center.

OBJECTIVE: The main goals, of this observational study were to clarify and categorize decisional capacity assessments performed by a psychosomatic medicine (PSM) consult service at an academic medical center. Areas of investigation included types of decisional capacity requests, the relationship between Folstein Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) and PSM decisional capacity determination, psychiatric diagnoses of patients, and the agreement between primary clinician capacity assessment and that of the PSM clinician. METHOD: This was a prospective study of 100 consecutive decisional capacity consultations. Twelve requests were for second consultations for patients previously seen, for a net of 88 patients. RESULTS: In 77 cases, patients lacked decisional capacity. Assessments for capacity to leave against medical advice (AMA), capacity to accept medical/surgical procedures, capacity to refuse medical/surgical procedures, and capacity to participate in discharge planning were nearly equally frequent. An MMSE cutoff score of < 21 was found to be 100% specific and 69% sensitive for identifying the patients without capacity, while a cutoff of < 24 was found to be 83% sensitive and 90% specific for identifying patients without capacity. The primary psychiatric diagnosis was a cognitive disorder in 52 cases. In 38 of the 39 cases where the primary team believed the patient lacked capacity, the PSM service agreed. In only two of the seven cases where primary teams believed patients had capacity did the PSM team agree. CONCLUSIONS: The MMSE was a useful predictor of capacity determination by PSM personnel, but using MMSE alone results in a number of erroneous determinations. Cognitive disorders were the most common primary psychiatric diagnoses in decisional capacity cases. Primary teams tended to be more accurate when they found patients to lack capacity.