Perinatal substance use treatment and criminal legal system referral trends.

INTRODUCTION: To guide improvements in treatment for pregnant persons with substance use disorders within the criminal legal system, treatment programs must first determine the primary substances of concern for this population. The objective of this study is to compare trends in specific substance use upon admission to treatment in pregnancy, based upon whether referrals originated from the criminal legal system or from another referral source. METHODS: This research accessed data on perinatal substance use (1995-2021) and referral sources from the Treatment Episode Data Set-Admissions (TEDS-A). Analyses use multiple logistic regressions to evaluate trends in primary substance use leading to treatment admission during pregnancy. RESULTS: Approximately 1 % (N = 536,948) of all substance use treatment admissions in TEDS-A were for pregnant people. Between 1995 and 2021, the percentage of treatment admissions increased for primary methamphetamine use (10 % to 27 %), primary opioid use (21 % to 38 %), and primary cannabis use (9 % to 18 %), and decreased for primary cocaine use (32 % to 6 %) and primary alcohol use (26 % to 11 %). By 2021, treatment admissions referred from criminal legal agencies were more likely to primarily be for primary methamphetamine use (33 % vs 25 %) and less likely to be for primary opioid use (22 % vs 42 %) compared to other referral sources. CONCLUSIONS: Trends in substance use treatment during pregnancy have changed substantially over the past few decades and emphasize the unique needs of patients referred to treatment by the criminal legal system. Treatment programs must therefore adapt to fluctuating trends in perinatal substance use. In particular, it is important to expand programs that prioritize treatment of methamphetamine use disorder for pregnant people referred through criminal legal agencies.

Treatment Referrals Post-prohibition of Alcohol Exclusion Laws: Evidence from Colorado and Illinois.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with alcohol-related disorders often encounter barriers to accessing treatment. One potential barrier is the state alcohol exclusion laws (AELs) that allow insurers to deny coverage for injuries or illnesses caused by alcohol intoxication. Several states have repealed AELs by prohibiting them completely, including banning exclusions in health and accident insurance policies, limiting their scope, or creating exemptions. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether prohibiting alcohol exclusions in health and accident insurance policies is associated with alcohol-related treatment admissions. DESIGN: We used the 2002 to 2017 Treatment Episode Data Set and obtained data from several sources to control for state-level factors. We employed a heterogeneous difference-in-differences method and an event study to compare the treatment admissions in Colorado and Illinois, two states that uniquely repealed AELs, with control states that allowed or had no AELs. MAIN MEASURES: We used aggregated alcohol treatment admission for adults by healthcare referral: (i) with alcohol as the primary substance and (ii) with alcohol as the primary, secondary, or tertiary substance. KEY RESULTS: We found a significant relationship between AEL repeal and increased referrals. AEL repeal in Colorado and Illinois was associated with higher treatment admissions from 2008 to 2011 (average treatment effect on the treated: 2008 = 653, 2009 = 1161, 2010 = 1388, and 2011 = 2020). We also found that a longer duration of exposure to AEL repeal was associated with higher treatment admissions, but this effect faded after the fourth year post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals a potential positive association between the repeal and prohibition of AELs and increased alcohol-related treatment admissions. These findings suggest that states could enhance treatment opportunities for alcohol-related disorders by reconsidering their stance on AELs. While our study highlights the possible public health benefits of repealing AELs, it also paves the way for additional studies in this domain.

Behavioral health indicators and time-to-rearrest in an adult pre-arrest diversion program.

Several states have recently adopted legislation in support of pre-arrest diversion programs that give police the authority to refer adults with behavioral health needs to treatment providers instead of placing them under arrest and booking them into local jails. The Adult Civil Citation program has been operating since 2013 to divert adults accused for the first time of a misdemeanor offense to a community behavioral health provider with the primary goal of addressing underlying needs that are likely to be associated with future criminal justice contact. The current study analyzed data from a sample of 1,071 adults who participated in the program to assess the impact of behavioral health indicators on time-to-rearrest. Adults who presented greater behavioral health needs were more likely to come into subsequent contact with police, but these indications did not influence the amount of time that lapsed between program participation and rearrest events.

State criminal justice policy context and opioid agonist treatment delivery among opioid treatment admissions, 2015.

BACKGROUND: Criminal justice referral to treatment is associated with reduced odds of receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT), the gold-standard treatment for opioid use disorder. States vary substantially in the extent of criminal justice system involvement in opioid treatment; however, the effects on treatment provision are not clear. We examined whether state-level criminal justice involvement in the substance use treatment system modified the association between criminal justice referral to treatment and OAT provision among opioid treatment admissions. METHODS: We conducted a random effects logistic regression to investigate how the effects of criminal justice referral to treatment on OAT provision differed in states with high vs. low state-level criminal justice involvement in opioid treatment, adjusting for individual and state-level covariates, among 22 states in the 2015 Treatment Episode Dataset-Admissions. RESULTS: Criminal justice referral to treatment was associated with an 85% reduction in the odds of receiving OAT, compared to other sources of treatment referral (OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.16). Among opioid treatment admissions resulting from criminal justice referral in 2015, receiving treatment in high criminal justice involvement states was associated with a 63% reduction in the odds of OAT provision, compared to opioid treatment received in low criminal justice involvement states (interaction OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.89). CONCLUSION: The effects of criminal justice referral to treatment on OAT provision varied by criminal justice involvement in opioid treatment at the state level. Targeted interventions should increase access to OAT in states that rely on the criminal justice system for opioid treatment referrals.

Clinical ethics consultation among Italian ethics committee: A mixed method study.

OBJECTIVE: The general purpose for ethics consultations is to deliberate on issues on medical and scientific research and act towards the safeguard of the patient's rights and dignity. With the implementation of European Union (EU) Regulation 536/2014 on clinical trials and cost and time-optimization, the nature of consultations and the bodies they are carried out might be to some extent affected. Accordingly, we sought to gain an updated perspective on the current role and current practices of ethics consultations nationwide in both clinical and research settings. METHODS: The study was carried forth by a three-step mixed-method approach: i) review of policies/regulations for ethics committee (EC) nationwide; ii) a structured survey on ethics consultation activity completed by each EC during 2016; iii) incorporated into the third part, a qualitative assessment with a selected sample of 8 key-informants for a semi-structured interview, discussing EC history, the ethics consultation function, and the professional experience of consultants. RESULTS: Review of the policies/regulations promoted by ECs showed that 72,6% (n = 69) of all the ECs (N = 95) being actually capable of providing ethics consultation service by policy. 71 ECs (74.7%) responded to the survey on ethics consultation requests; among them, 48 (67.6%) provided ethics consultations of which 23 (23/48) actually received requests for this service in the year 2016. Many ECs did not have a structured database in place to provide precise figures of requests received in the last year nor of their contents. CONCLUSION: To date, ethics consultation in clinical and research practice is largely underappreciated and not well understood by users. The consultants themselves lack a comprehensive vision of work carried out in their field, and bioethics training programs to keep them updated. Despite clinical ethics consultation services should not necessarily be mandatory, following the recent EU Regulation on clinical trials, institutional ethics consultation bodies should be re-evaluated.

Involuntary admission of psychiatric patients: Referring physicians' perceptions of competence.

BACKGROUND: Involuntary admissions can be detrimental for patients. Due to legal, ethical and clinical considerations, they are also challenging for referring physicians. Nevertheless, not much is known about the subjective perceptions of those who have to decide whether to conduct an involuntary admission or not. AIMS: This study aimed at answering the question whether psychiatrists' perceptions of confidence during psychiatric emergency situations and consecutive involuntary admissions differ from those of physicians without a psychiatric training. METHOD: We assessed the professional background and subjective perceptions during psychiatric emergency situations in physicians who executed involuntary admissions to the University Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich. We used one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests and chi-square tests to compare the responses of 43 psychiatrists with those of 64 other physicians. RESULTS: Psychiatrists felt less time constraints compared with non-psychiatric residents. The latter also had more doubts on the necessity of the involuntary admission issued. Psychiatrists considered themselves significantly more experienced in handling psychiatric emergency situations and in handling the criteria for involuntary admissions than other physicians. Psychiatrists and other physicians did not differ in their satisfaction concerning course and results of psychiatric emergency situations which was overall high. About half of all participants felt pressure from third parties. CONCLUSION: Psychiatric emergency situations are challenging situations not only for patients but also for the involved physicians. Physicians with a specialized training might be more confident in the handling of psychiatric emergency situations and exertion of involuntary admissions. Non-psychiatric physicians might benefit from specialized training programs.

[Characteristics of patients who received an indication of involuntary admission, with or without the involvement of a third party, in a Parisian psychiatric emergency unit]. / Caractérisation d'une population de patients hospitalisés sous contrainte en ASPDT/u et ASPPI à partir d'un service d'urgence psychiatrique parisien.

BACKGROUND: The French mental health law, first enacted on July 5, 2011, introduced the possibility of psychiatric commitment in case of extreme urgency (imminent peril - ASPPI). The decision of involuntary admission can then be made by the hospital director based on a medical certificate, without the need of a third party request. This procedure was intended to be applied on an exceptional basis, but its use is steadily increasing against the other types of involuntary care. Our study aimed at comparing the characteristics of patients who had received an indication for involuntary admission due to imminent peril (ASPPI) or at the request of a third party (ASPDT/u) in a psychiatric emergency ward, according to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and regarding the potential implication of a third party. METHODS: An observational study was conducted among patients from the Centre Psychiatrique d'Orientation et d'Accueil (CPOA), located at Sainte-Anne hospital in Paris, from August 1st to 31st, 2016. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients with an indication for involuntary commitment were included, 101 of whom for ASPDT/u (67 %) and 49 for ASPPI (33 %). For more than half of the patients from the ASPPI group, a third party had been identified with (39 %) or without (17 %) contact information. Compared to ASPDT/u patients, ASPPI individuals were more socially vulnerable, showed more negligence, and had a lower mean functioning score. The indication for ASPPI status was also associated with behavioural quirks, prior psychiatric hospitalization (especially as an ASPPI patient) and with the diagnosis of chronic psychosis instead of mood disorder. CONCLUSION: Our exploratory results help to better understand how the ASPPI procedure is used in psychiatric emergency wards six years after enactment of the law. They highlight the differences between ASPPI patients and ASPDT/u and raise ethical issues regarding involuntary psychiatric care.

Changes in Hospital Referral Patterns to Skilled Nursing Facilities Under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

BACKGROUND: The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) penalizes hospitals for higher-than-expected readmission rates. Almost 20% of Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) patients receive postacute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) after hospitalization. SNF patients have high readmission rates. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the association between changes in hospital referral patterns to SNFs and HRRP penalty pressure. DESIGN: We examined changes in the relationship between penalty pressure and outcomes before versus after HRRP announcement among 2698 hospitals serving 6,936,393 Medicare FFS patients admitted for target conditions: acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. Hospital-level penalty pressure was the expected penalty rate in the first year of the HRRP multiplied by Medicare discharge share. OUTCOMES: Informal integration measured by the percentage of referrals to hospitals' most referred SNF; formal integration measured by SNF acquisition; readmission-based quality index of the SNFs to which a hospital referred discharged patients; referral rate to any SNF. RESULTS: Hospitals facing the median level of penalty pressure had modest differential increases of 0.3 percentage points in the proportion of referrals to the most referred SNF and a 0.006 SD increase in the average quality index of SNFs referred to. There were no statistically significant differential increases in formal acquisition of SNFs or referral rate to SNF. CONCLUSIONS: HRRP did not prompt substantial changes in hospital referral patterns to SNFs, although readmissions for patients referred to SNF differentially decreased more than for other patients, warranting investigation of other mechanisms underlying readmissions reduction.

Clinician testimony in suicide litigation: A cause to be uneasy.

This is an illustrative article rather than a research study. We offer opinions and recommendations about what we view as unfortunate clinician testimony in suicide-related malpractice cases, testimony that - inadvertently or not - supports or encourages inadequate care of suicidal patients. The principles apply to both psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists, although the former appear more often in our work. We particularly consider the roles and testimony, in court or at deposition, of psychiatrists, whether as defendants, expert witnesses, or fact witnesses. We cite examples of what we view as poor, disingenuous, dishonest and even dangerous testimony that we believe moves the profession toward unsafe patient care. The examples illustrate what we (and sometimes others) describe as normalization of deviance, pre-suit puffery, self-serving defendant testimony, expert pride supplanting testimonial responsibility, expert arrogance, expert parroting of attorney suggestions, witness ignorance and avoiding facts, unconscious expert bias, inexperience thwarting justice, misleading use of terms such as "predictability," and expert witnesses who lack the direct-care experience that jurisdictions often require in order to opine about defendant clinicians' day-to-day patient care. The examples often reveal concerns beyond the category chosen, and should not be expected to convey all of the facts of a particular case.

Curbside consults: Practices, pitfalls and legal issues.

OBJECTIVE: "Curbside consults" are informal opinions provided by one physician to another. In radiology, it often refers to opinions rendered on imaging performed at outside facilities and has evolved from being a targeted response to a discrete clinical question to a complete over-read in recent years. Given that the consults are usually sought for patients with complex conditions, the potential for error increases with informal reads, often due to the time constraint and lack of adequate information. Misinterpretations and inaccurate documentation by the referring clinician are also more likely. This study assesses the policies and views on curbside consults at academic centers in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey (via SurveyMonkey.com) was circulated to the 319 active radiologist members of the Association of Program Directors. There were 80 responses, representing a 25% response rate. RESULTS: While most facilities provided second reads (92%), only a few (23%) provided written reports and read the case entirely. The majority (77%) tailored their read to answer specific clinical questions. Approximately two-thirds did not require the outside radiologist's report to be available before their interpretation. Seventy-nine percent were at least mildly concerned about liability. Up to 45% billed for the study; 39% were not aware of the billing practice. CONCLUSION: Curbside consults are widely provided at U.S. academic institutions with only a minority documenting their opinions. The majority are concerned about the legal implications and this paper puts forth recommendations to minimize the potential for errors in patient care and decrease liability.

Involuntary admission for psychiatric treatment: Compliance with the law and legal considerations in referring physicians with different professional backgrounds.

BACKGROUND: Involuntary admission (IA) for psychiatric treatment is a massive restriction of human rights. Therefore, its execution is regulated by law. During executing IAs referring physicians find themselves in a dual role: support of patients in the recovery process but also safe-keeper of society. In Zurich, Switzerland the law stipulates that physicians regardless of their medical specialization may admit patients who suffer from a mental disorder, mental disability or severe neglect involuntarily if care cannot be provided otherwise, regardless of their decision-making capacity. The referring physician is obliged to examine the patients, hear their views on the IA, inform them about the following steps and about their right of appeal at the civil court. We aimed to assess whether referring physicians can comply with those legal requirements for an IA. Additionally, we examined whether legal considerations differed according to the physicians` professional backgrounds and attitudes towards coercion in general. METHODS: We invited physicians from different in- and outpatient settings who executed IAs to the University Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich to participate in a newly developed online survey. We used correlation analysis, chi-square and t-tests to analyze the responses of 43 psychiatrists with those of 64 other physicians. RESULTS: In about 1/3 of the IAs referring physicians were not able to hear the patients' views on the IA, to inform the patients about the following steps and about their right of appeal. Psychiatrists felt more certain with the legal basis of IA compared to physicians other than psychiatrists. Nevertheless, the latter stated that the assessment of the risk for suicide and danger should not be restricted only to psychiatrists. Both groups differed in their attitudes towards coercion with psychiatrists being more critical. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions should be developed to facilitate a compliance with legal requirements during IA. Physicians who execute IAs must have a thorough knowledge of the clinical and legal basis for their actions. We recommend specialized consultation teams for the assessment of PES and regular training including ethical discussions, especially for physicians other than psychiatrists.

Referral and consultation process between family medicine and continuous medical attention / Proceso de interconsulta entre medicina familiar y atención médica continua

The process of sending patients between the outpatient service of family medicine and the continuous medical care service at the IMSS is well established in the various internal systems as well as in the applicable mexican official standards, but it is necessary for the personnel involved to know it well in order to avoid setbacks during the reference and counter-reference process within the unit.

El proceso de envío de pacientes entre el servicio de consulta externa de medicina familiar y el servicio de atención médica continua en el IMSS se encuentra bien establecido en los diversos ordenamientos internos así como en las normas oficiales mexicanas aplicables, pero es necesario que el personal involucrado lo conozca bien con el fin de evitar contratiempos durante el proceso de referencia-contrareferencia dentro de la unidad.