The multicenter effectiveness study of inpatient and day hospital treatment in departments of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy in Germany.

Background: Reliable outcome data of psychosomatic inpatient and day hospital treatment with a focus on psychotherapy are important to strengthen ecological validity by assessing the reality of mental health care in the field. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of inpatient and day hospital treatment in German university departments of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy in a prospective, naturalistic, multicenter design including structured assessments. Methods: Structured interviews were used to diagnose mental disorders according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV at baseline. Depression, anxiety, somatization, eating disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, as well as personality functioning were assessed by means of questionnaires on admission and at discharge. Results: 2,094 patients recruited by 19 participating university hospitals consented to participation in the study. Effect sizes for each of the outcome criteria were calculated for 4-5 sub-groups per outcome domain with differing severity at baseline. Pre-post effect sizes for patients with moderate and high symptom severity at baseline ranged from d = 0.78 to d = 3.61 with symptoms of PTSD, depression, and anxiety showing the largest and somatization as well as personality functioning showing somewhat smaller effects. Conclusions: Inpatient and day hospital treatment in German university departments of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy is effective under field conditions. Clinical trial registration: https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00016412, identifier: DRKS00016412.

Implementing biofeedback treatment in a psychosomatic-psychotherapeutic inpatient unit: a mixed methods evaluation of acceptance, satisfaction, and feasibility.

Introduction: Feedback-based therapies such as biofeedback have a benefit in patients with mental health disorders. While biofeedback is heavily researched in outpatient settings, it has been rarely investigated in psychosomatic inpatient settings. The implementation of an additional treatment option in inpatient settings holds special requirements. The aim of this pilot study is the evaluation of additional biofeedback treatment in an inpatient psychosomatic-psychotherapeutic unit to derive clinical implications and recommendations for the future implementation of biofeedback offers. Methods: The evaluation of the implementation process was investigated using a convergent parallel mixed methods approach (following MMARS guidelines). Quantitative questionnaires measured patients' acceptance and satisfaction with biofeedback treatment after receiving 10 sessions in addition to treatment as usual. After 6 months during implementation, qualitative interviews were conducted with biofeedback practitioners, i.e., staff nurses, examining acceptance and feasibility. Data analysis was conducted using either descriptive statistics or Mayring's qualitative content analysis. Results: In total, 40 patients and 10 biofeedback practitioners were included. Quantitative questionnaires revealed high satisfaction and acceptance in patients regarding biofeedback treatment. Qualitative interviews showed high acceptance in biofeedback practitioners but revealed several challenges that were encountered during the implementation process, e.g., increased workload due to additional tasks, organizational and structural difficulties. However, biofeedback practitioners were enabled to expand their own competencies and take over a therapeutic part of the inpatient treatment. Discussion: Even though patient satisfaction and staff motivation are high, the implementation of biofeedback in an inpatient unit requires special actions to be taken. Not only should personnel resources be planned and available in advance of implementation but also be the workflow for biofeedback practitioners as easy and quality of biofeedback treatment as high as possible. Consequently, the implementation of a manualized biofeedback treatment should be considered. Nevertheless, more research needs to be done about suitable biofeedback protocols for this patient clientele.

What Kind of Patients Receive Inpatient and Day-Hospital Treatment in Departments of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy in Germany?

INTRODUCTION: Germany is one of the few countries with a medical specialty of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy and many treatment resources of this kind. OBJECTIVE: This observational study describes the psychosomatic treatment programs as well as a large sample of day-hospital and inpatients in great detail using structured diagnostic interviews. METHODS: Mental disorders were diagnosed according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV by means of Mini-DIPS and SCID-II. In addition to the case records, a modified version of the CSSRI was employed to collect demographic data and service use. The PHQ-D was used to assess depression, anxiety, and somatization. RESULTS: 2,094 patients from 19 departments participated in the study after giving informed consent. The sample consisted of a high proportion of "complex patients" with high comorbidity of mental and somatic diseases, severe psychopathology, and considerable social and occupational dysfunction including more than 50 days of sick leave per year in half of the sample. The most frequent diagnoses were depression, somatoform and anxiety disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, and somato-psychic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient and day-hospital treatment in German university departments of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy is an intensive multimodal treatment for complex patients with high comorbidity and social as well as occupational dysfunction.

Psychosocial emergency care in times of COVID-19: the Essen University Hospital concept for corona-infected patients, their relatives, and medical staff.

Due to the SARS CoV-2-virus (COVID-19), anxiety, distress, and insecurity occur more frequently. In particular, infected individuals, their relatives, and medical staff face an increased risk of high psychological distress as a result of the ongoing pandemic. Thus, structured psychosocial emergency concepts are needed. The University hospital of Essen has taken up this challenge by creating the PEC concept to reduce psychosocial long-term consequences for infected patients, relatives, and medical staff at the university hospital. The concept includes professional medical as well as psychological support to convey constructive coping strategies and the provision of adequate tools such as the low-threshold online training program (CoPE It), which is accessible via the webpage www.cope-corona.de .

Psychosocial predictors for outcome after total joint arthroplasty: a prospective comparison of hip and knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: As findings regarding predictors for good outcome after total joint arthroplasty are highly inconsistent, aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the psychosocial variables sense of coherence and social support as well as mental distress on physical outcome after surgery. It should be investigated if different predictors are important in patients after total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared to patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: In a prospective design, 44 patients undergoing THA and 61 patients undergoing TKA were examined presurgery and 6 and 12 weeks after surgery using WOMAC (disease-specific outcome), SF-36 (health-related quality of life), BSI (psychological distress), SOC-13 (sense of coherence), and F-SozU (social support). Changes over time were calculated by analyses of variance with repeated measures. Stepwise multiple linear regression analyses were computed for each group to predict scores of WOMAC total and all WOMAC subscales 12 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: THA as well as TKA patients experienced improvements in all parameters (effect sizes for WOMAC scores between η2 = .387 and η2 = .631) with THA patients showing even better results than TKA patients. WOMAC scores 12 weeks after surgery were predicted predominantly by WOMAC baseline scores in TKA with an amount of explained variance between 9.6 and 19.5%. In THA, 12-weeks WOMAC scores were predicted by baseline measures of psychosocial aspects (anxiety, sense of coherence, social support). In this group, predictors accounted for 17.1 to 31.6% of the variance. CONCLUSIONS: Different predictors for outcome after total joint arthroplasty were obtained for THA and TKA patients. Although psychosocial aspects seemed to be less important in TKA patients, preoperatively, distressed patients of both groups should be offered interventions to reduce psychological distress to obtain better outcomes after surgery.