Is paranoid status prognostic of good outcomes? It depends.

Better outcomes for psychiatric inpatients classified as paranoid rather than nonparanoid could be due to group differences in disability levels created by traditional classification approaches. Paranoid functioning, per se, may not predict good institutional outcomes. The authors retrieved community outcome data for 469 inpatients from 19 wards, a subsample of participants that had been previously examined during their inpatient stay. Paranoid groups showed better community outcomes as an artifact of differences in disability levels when classifications were based on the traditional approach that requires a predominance of paranoid over nonparanoid behavior. No differential outcomes appeared when classifications were based on dimensionally measured paranoid functioning alone. In fact, dispositions of patients suggest that staff view paranoid behavior as a negative rather than positive prognostic indicator.

Consensus judgments of discharge readiness based on paranoid behavior: to what are clinical staff responding?

BACKGROUND: Salinas et al. (J Consult Clin Psychol 4:1029-1039, 2002) found that, contrary to widely held beliefs, paranoid behavior was a positive prognostic indicator for psychiatric inpatients only due to artifactual restrictions on overall level of functioning that result from traditional classification procedures. Paranoid functioning, in fact, negatively impacted consensus staff discharge-readiness judgments. This discrepancy between clinical lore and empirical findings raises a question about the aspects of paranoid functioning to which staff responds. METHOD: Those aspects of paranoid functioning are examined in this study, using the same sample of 469 inpatients from 19 treatment units reported in the Salinas et al. investigation. RESULTS: Both dimensionally measured paranoid functioning and overall level of disability were independently associated with negative discharge-readiness decisions. However, rather than delusions or hallucinations, hostility entirely accounted for the contribution of paranoid functioning to these prognostic judgments. CONCLUSION: We discuss implications of an alternative approach to classifying patients' problem behavior for clinical research and practice.