Former Inpatient Psychiatric Patients' Past Experiences With Traditional Frontline Staff and Their Thoughts on the Benefits of Peers as Part of Frontline Staff.

Little is known about how integrating peers into frontline staff might improve the quality of inpatient psychiatric care. In the current study, we interviewed 18 former adult patients of inpatient psychiatric facilities using semi-structured interviews. We first asked about positive and negative past experiences with traditional staff. We then asked participants to share their opinions on the potential benefits of peers as part of frontline staff. We identified themes through a joint inductive and deductive approach. Participants reported past positive experiences with traditional staff as being (a) personable and caring, (b) validating feelings and experiences, (c) de-escalating, and (d) providing agency. Past negative experiences included (a) not sharing information, (b) being inattentive, (c) not providing agency, (d) being dehumanizing/disrespectful, (e) incompetency, (f) escalating situations, and (g) being apathetic. Participants believed that peers as part of frontline staff could champion emotional needs in humanizing and nonjudgmental ways, help navigate the system, and disrupt power imbalances between staff and patients. Further research is needed to understand financial, organizational, and cultural barriers to integrating peers into frontline staff. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 60(3), 15-22.].

The Effect of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting Program on the Use of Restraint and Seclusion.

BACKGROUND: Patients in inpatient psychiatry settings are uniquely vulnerable to harm. As sources of harm, research and policy efforts have specifically focused on minimizing and eliminating restraint and seclusion. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting (IPFQR) program attempts to systematically measure and reduce restraint and seclusion. We evaluated facilities' response to the IPFQR program and differences by ownership, hypothesizing that facilities reporting these measures for the first time will show a greater reduction and that ownership will moderate this effect. METHODS: Using a difference-in-differences design and exploiting variation among facilities that previously reported on these measures to The Joint Commission, we examined the effect of the IPFQR public reporting program on the use and duration of restraint and seclusion from the end of 2012 through 2017. RESULTS: There were a total of 9705 observations of facilities among 1841 unique facilities. Results suggest the IPFQR program reduced duration of restraint by 48.96% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 16.69%-68.73%] and seclusion by 53.54% (95% CI, 19.71%-73.12%). There was no change in odds of zero restraint and, among for-profits only, a decrease of 36.89% (95% CI, 9.32%-56.07%) in the odds of zero seclusion. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first examination of the effect of the IPFQR program on restraint and seclusion, suggesting the program was successful in reducing their use. We did not find support for ownership moderating this effect. Additional research is needed to understand mechanisms of response and the impact of the program on nontargeted aspects of quality.

Harms to Consumers of Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities in the United States: An Analysis of News Articles.

Inpatient psychiatric facilities in the United States lack systematic regulation and monitoring of a variety of patient safety concerns. We conducted a qualitative analysis of 61 news articles to identify common causes and types of harms within inpatient psychiatric facilities, with a focus on physical harm. The news articles reported on patient self-harm, patient-patient violence, and violence between patients and staff, noting that youth, older adults, and veterans were especially vulnerable. Harms occurred throughout the care continuum - at admission, during the inpatient stay, and at discharge - and retaliation towards whistleblowers deterred facility accountability. We recommend 1) addressing staffing shortages, 2) instituting systematic monitoring of critical incidents and the experiences of consumers and staff, 3) improving both inpatient safety and post-discharge community supports, and 4) continued journalistic coverage of harms within inpatient psychiatric facilities.

Inpatient Psychiatric Care in the United States: Former Patients' Perspectives on Opportunities for Quality Improvement.

Patient-centered care is a salient value expressed by stakeholders, but a commitment to implementing patient-centered care environments lags in the context of inpatient psychiatry. The current study aimed to describe patients' suggestions for improving the quality of inpatient psychiatry. We fielded a national survey online in 2021, in which we asked participants to report their recommendations for care improvement through a free-response box. We used an inductive qualitative approach to synthesize responses into themes. Most responses described negative experiences, with suggested improvements implied as the inverse or absence of the respondent's negative experience. Among 510 participants, we identified 10 themes: personalized care, empathetic connection, communication, whole health approach, humane care, physical safety, respecting patients' rights and autonomy, structural environment, equitable treatment, and continuity of care and systems. To implement the value of patient-centered care, we suggest that those in positions of power prioritize improvement initiatives around these aspects of care that patients find most in need of improvement.

COVID-19 Mitigation Activities in Inpatient Psychiatry Were Associated With Patient-Reported Institutional Betrayal, Changes in Trust, and Fear of Getting Sick.

Institutional betrayal occurs when the institutions that people depend on fail to protect them from harm, which was exemplified by a failure to manage COVID-19 risks. Inpatient psychiatry provides a rich context for which to understand the effects of institutional betrayal, and this is amplified in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a retrospective cohort design, we administered an online survey to former patients (n = 172) of inpatient psychiatry hospitalized at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021) to understand the relationship between facilities' use of COVID-19 mitigation activities (ie, offering or requiring face masks, keeping patients and staff 6 feet apart, access to hand sanitizer, use of telemedicine for clinical consults, and routine cleanliness of the unit) and former patients' reports of institutional betrayal, changes in their trust in mental healthcare providers, fear of getting sick, and having contracted or witnessed someone else contract COVID-19. The quantity of COVID-19 mitigation activities was monotonically negatively associated with the probability of reporting any betrayal, the probability of reduced trust in mental healthcare providers, and the probability of being afraid of getting sick always or most of the time while hospitalized. COVID-19 mitigation activities either directly affected these psychological outcomes, or facilities that engaged in robust mitigation had greater cultures of safety and care quality. Additional qualitative work is needed to understand these mechanisms.

Why Patient-Centered Built Environment Standards Matter More Than Numbers of Beds in Inpatient Psychiatry.

This article canvasses extant literature about values, evidence, and standards for inpatient psychiatry units' design. It then analyzes apparent trade-offs between quality of care and access to care using empirical and ethical lenses. From this analysis, the authors conclude that standards for the built environment of inpatient psychiatric care should align with patient-centeredness, even if a downstream consequence of implementing new patient-centered designs is a reduction in beds, although this secondary outcome is unlikely.

Changes in institution for mental diseases (IMD) ownership status and insurance acceptance over time.

State Medicaid programs are prohibited from using federal dollars to pay institutions for mental diseases (IMDs)-freestanding psychiatric facilities with more than 16 beds. Increasingly, regulatory mechanisms have made payment of treatment in these settings substantially more feasible. This study evaluates if changing financial incentives are associated with increases in for-profit ownership among IMD facilities relative to non-IMD facilities, as well as greater increases in Medicaid acceptance among for-profit IMD facilities relative to for-profit non-IMD facilities. We used data from the 2014-2020 National Mental Health Services Surveys and examined 11 945 facility-years. Relative to non-IMDs, the increase in for-profit ownership among IMDs was 6.6 percentage points greater. The largest proportional change in Medicaid acceptance occurred among for-profit IMD facilities relative to for-profit non-IMDs (18.5 percentage points). Existing research is mixed on the quality of inpatient and residential psychiatric care provided in for-profit vs nonprofit and public facilities, as well as in IMD relative to non-IMD facilities. As payment policy increasingly incentivizes for-profit facilities to enter the psychiatric care space, we should be mindful of the impact of these decisions on patient safety.

Complaints, Restraint, and Seclusion in Massachusetts Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities, 2008-2018.

There has been limited research on the quality of inpatient psychiatry, yet policies to expand access have increased, such as the use of Medicaid Section 1115 waivers for treatment in "Institutions for Mental Disease" (IMD). Using data from public records requests, we evaluated complaints, restraint, and seclusion from inpatient psychiatric facilities in Massachusetts occurring from 2008 to 2018, and compared differences in the rates of these events by IMD status. There were 17,962 total complaints, with 48.9% related to safety and 19.9% related to abuse (sexual, physical, verbal), and 92,670 episodes of restraint and seclusion. On average, for every 30 census days in a given facility, restraint, and seclusion occurred 7.47 and 1.81 times, respectively, and a complaint was filed 0.94 times. IMDs had 47.8%, 68.3%, 276.9%, 284.8%, 183.6%, and 236.1% greater rates of restraint, seclusion, overall complaints, substantiated complaints, safety-related complaints, and abuse-related complaints, respectively, compared to non-IMDs. This is the first known study to describe complaints from United States inpatient psychiatric facilities. Policies should strengthen the implementation of patients' rights and patient-centeredness, as well as external critical-incident-reporting systems.

Patient-centered inpatient psychiatry is associated with outcomes, ownership, and national quality measures.

Following discharge from inpatient psychiatry, patients experience elevated suicide risk, unplanned readmission, and lack of outpatient follow-up visits. These negative outcomes might relate to patient-centered care (PCC) experiences while hospitalized. We surveyed 739 former patients of inpatient psychiatric settings to understand the relationship between PCC and changes in patients' trust, willingness to engage in care, and self-reported 30-day follow-up visits. We also linked PCC measures to facility-level quality measures in the Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting program. Relative to patients discharged from facilities in the top quartile of PCC, those discharged from facilities in the bottom quartile were more likely to experience reduced trust (predicted probability [PP] = 0.77 vs 0.46; P < .001), reduced willingness to go to the hospital voluntarily (PP = 0.99 vs 0.01; P < .001), and a lower likelihood of a 30-day follow-up (PP = 0.71 vs 0.92; P < .001). PCC was lower among patients discharged from for-profits, was positively associated with facility-level quality measures of 7- and 30-day follow-up and medication continuation, and was inversely associated with restraint use. Findings underscore the need to introduce systematic measurement and improvement of PCC in this setting.

Key person-centered care domains for residential substance use disorder treatment facilities: former clients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: While person-centered care (PCC) includes multiple domains, residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment clients may value certain domains over others. We sought to identify the PCC domains most valued by former residential SUD treatment clients. We also sought to explore conceptual distinctions between potential theoretical PCC subdomains. METHODS: We distributed an online survey via social media to a national convenience sample of former residential SUD treatment clients. Respondents were presented with ten PCC domains in an online survey: (a) access to evidence-based care; (b) integration of care; (c) diversity/respect for other cultures; (d) individualization of care; (e) emotional support; (f) family involvement in treatment; (g) transitional services; (h) aftercare; (i) physical comfort; and (j) information provision. Respondents were asked to select up to two domains they deemed most important to their residential SUD treatment experience. We used descriptive statistics to identify response frequencies and logistic regression to predict relationships between selected domains and respondents' race, gender, relationship status, parenting status, and housing stability. RESULTS: Our final sample included 435 former residential SUD treatment clients. Diversity and respect for different cultures was the most frequently selected domain (29%), followed by integration of care (26%), emotional support (26%), and individualization of care (26%). Provision of information was the least frequently chosen domain (3%). Race and ethnicity were not predictive of selecting respect for diversity. Also, parental status, relationship status and gender were not predictive of selecting family integration. Employment and housing status were not predictive of selecting transitional services. CONCLUSIONS: While residential SUD treatment facilities should seek to implement PCC across all domains, our results suggest facilities should prioritize (a) operationalizing diversity, (b) integration of care, and (c) emotional support. Significant heterogeneity exists regarding PCC domains deemed most important to clients. PCC domains valued by clients cannot be easily predicted based on client demographics.

Operationalizing person-centered care in residential substance use disorder treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Person-centered care (PCC) is an ethical imperative with eight domains, but operation of some PCC domains in substance use disorder (SUD) treatment has been underexplored. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify strategies for operationalizing eight PCC domains in SUD treatment facilities and themes across these strategies. METHODS: We recruited 36 clients and staff from a large publicly funded behavioral health system for individual, semi-structured qualitative interviews. Interviews explored preferences and care experiences for each PCC domain. We analyzed data using iterative categorization, identifying specific operationalization strategies and themes across operationalization strategies within each domain. RESULTS: PCC operationalization themes for residential SUD treatment included addressing social vulnerability of clients (e.g., through assistance with housing and navigation of criminal/legal systems), involving peer support specialists (e.g., to provide emotional support and aid transition out of care), supporting the client's family throughout treatment (e.g., providing progress updates; increasing visitation opportunities in residential treatment), and facilitating patient choice within each domain (e.g., treatment type; housing type; roommate preferences in residential treatment.). DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION: Some PCC operationalization strategies are unique to SUD treatment. Several PCC operationalization strategies applied to multiple domains, suggesting conceptual overlap between domains.

Effects of the CMS' Public Reporting Program for Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities on Targeted and Nontargeted Safety: Differences Between For-Profits and Nonprofits.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services implemented the Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting Program in 2012, which publicly reports facilities' performance on restraint and seclusion (R-S) measures. Using data from Massachusetts, we examined whether nonprofits and for-profits responded differently to the program on targeted indicators, and if the program had a differential spillover effect on nontargeted indicators of quality by ownership. Episodes of R-S (targeted), complaints (nontargeted), and discharges were obtained for 2008-2017 through public records requests to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Using difference-in-differences estimators, we found no differential changes in R-S between for-profits and nonprofits. However, for-profits had larger increases in overall complaints, safety-related complaints, abuse-related complaints, and R-S-related complaints compared with nonprofits. This is the first study to examine the effects of a national public reporting program among psychiatric facilities on nontargeted measures. Researchers and policymakers should further scrutinize intended and unintended consequences of performance-reporting programs.

Residential treatment and medication treatment for opioid use disorder: The role of state Medicaid innovations in advancing the field.

Background: Mortality due to opioid use continues to increase; effective strategies to improve access to treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) are needed. While OUD medications exist, they are used infrequently and often not available in residential addiction treatment settings. CMS provides expanded opportunities for Medicaid reimbursement of treatment in residential facilities and requires states that request Medicaid SUD Waivers to provide a full continuum of care including medication treatment. The objective of this study was to assess how states facilitate access to OUD medications in residential settings and whether Medicaid requirements play a role. Methods: Using a legal mapping framework, across the 50 states and DC, we abstracted data from state regulations in 2019 - 2020 and Medicaid Section 1115(a) demonstration applications. We examined the temporal relationship between state regulations regarding medication-assisted treatment for OUD in residential settings and Section 1115(a) demonstrations. Results: We identified variation in regulations regarding medication treatment for OUD in residential settings and possible spillover effects of the CMS requirements for Medicaid SUD Waivers. In 18 states with relevant regulations, regulatory approaches include identifying opioid medication treatment as a right, requiring access to OUD medication treatment, and establishing other requirements. 25 of 30 states with approved Section 1115(a) demonstrations included explicit requirements for OUD medication treatment access. Four states updated OUD medication treatment regulations for residential treatment settings within a year of applying for a Section 1115(a) demonstration. Conclusions: State regulations and Medicaid program requirements are policy levers to facilitate OUD medication treatment access.

Increases in Inpatient Psychiatry Beds Operated by Systems, For-Profits, and Chains, 2010-2016.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored trends in the quantity of inpatient psychiatry beds and in facility characteristics. METHODS: Using the National Bureau of Economic Research's Health Systems and Provider Database, the authors examined changes in the number of psychiatric facilities and beds, focusing on system ownership, profit status, facility type (general acute care versus freestanding), and affiliation with psychiatric hospital chains from 2010 to 2016. RESULTS: The number of psychiatric beds was relatively unchanged from 2010 (N=112,182 beds) to 2016 (N=111,184). However, the number of beds operated by systems increased by 39.8% (N=15,803); for-profits, by 56.9% (N=8,572); and chains, by 16.7% (N=6,256). Net increases in beds were primarily concentrated in for-profit freestanding psychiatric hospitals. In 2016, most for-profit beds were part of chains (70.2%) and systems (61.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient psychiatry has shifted toward increased ownership by systems, for-profits, and chains. Payers and policy makers should safeguard against profiteering, and future research should investigate the implications of these trends on quality of care.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Admission to Low-Safety Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities: Evidence for Racial Inequities.

OBJECTIVE: The author examined patient demographic, clinical, payment, and geographic factors associated with admission to low-safety inpatient psychiatric facilities. METHODS: Massachusetts all-payer 2017 discharge data (N=39,128 psychiatric patients) were linked to facility-level indicators of safety (N=38 facilities). A composite of safety was created by averaging standardized measures of restraint and seclusion as well as 5-year averages of overall, substantiated, and abuse-related (i.e., verbal, physical, or sexual) complaints per 1,000 discharges (α=0.73). This composite informed quintile groups of safety performance. A series of multinomial regression models were fit, with payment and geography added separately. RESULTS: Notable factors independently associated with admission to low-safety facilities were belonging to a racial or ethnic minority group compared with being a White patient (for non-Hispanic Black, relative risk ratio [RRR]=1.71, p<0.01; for non-Hispanic Asian, RRR=5.60, p<0.01; for non-Hispanic "other" race, RRR=2.17, p<0.01; and for Hispanic-Latinx, RRR=1.29, p<0.01) and not having private insurance (for self-pay or uninsured, RRR=2.40, p<0.01; for Medicaid, RRR=1.80, p<0.01; and for Medicare, RRR=1.31, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: To the best of the author's knowledge, this is the first study to examine differences in admission to low-safety inpatient psychiatric facilities. Even after accounting for potential clinical, geographic, and insurance mediators of structural racism, stark racial and ethnic inequities were found in admission to low-safety inpatient psychiatric facilities. In addition to addressing safety performance, policy makers should invest in gaining a better understanding of how differences in community-based referrals, mode of transport (e.g., police or self), and deliberate or unintentional steering and selection affect admissions and outcomes.

Use of Electronic Health Information Technology in a National Sample of Hospitals That Provide Specialty Substance Use Care.

OBJECTIVE: Most U.S. acute care hospitals have adopted basic electronic health record (EHR) functionality and health information exchange (HIE) (84% and 88%, respectively, in 2017). This study examined whether rates of EHR and HIE adoption by hospital-based substance use disorder programs are lower than rates by acute care hospitals. METHODS: Data from the 2017 National Survey on Substance Abuse Treatment Services were analyzed to examine adoption of basic EHR functionality (i.e., assessment, progress monitoring, discharge, labs, and prescription dispensing) and use of HIE by hospital-based programs. Analyses used weighted multivariable models of EHR and HIE outcomes, adjusted for nonresponse. RESULTS: Of 894 hospital-based substance use disorder programs with EHR information, two-thirds (N=606, 68%) reported use of basic EHR functionality. Psychiatric hospitals were less likely than acute care hospitals to have adopted EHR (odds ratio [OR]=0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.35-0.71). Compared with nonprofit hospitals, for-profit (OR=0.23, 95% CI=0.16-0.35) and government-owned (OR=0.52, 95% CI=0.33-0.83) hospitals were less likely to use basic EHR functionality. Hospital-based programs providing medications for alcohol or opioid use disorders were more likely than those not providing such medications to use basic EHR (OR=1.95, 95% CI=1.31-2.90). Of 839 hospitals with information on HIE use, 598 (71%) reported using electronic HIE. Adoption of basic EHR functionality was the strongest predictor of HIE use (OR=4.73, 95% CI=3.29-6.79). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based substance use disorder programs trail behind U.S. acute care hospitals in adoption of basic EHR and electronic HIE. Findings raise concerns about missed opportunities to improve hospital-based substance use disorder care quality and performance measurement.

Patient Engagement Activities and Patient Experience: Are Patients With a History of Depression the Canary in the Coal Mine?

Little is known about the effectiveness of primary care practices' efforts to engage patients in their health and health care. We examine the association between patient engagement efforts and patients' experiences of care. We found no association between an unweighted count of patient engagement activities and patient experience. Compared with the bottom quartile of practices, however, the top quartile had better performance on patient experience domains of communication, front-office staff, and organizational access (out of nine domains). Furthermore, patients reporting a diagnosis of depression have higher ratings across five domains of patient experience when in practices with higher levels of patient engagement activities measured using an unweighted scale. Future research is needed to understand how the benefits of patient engagement activities can accrue to more patient subgroups. These promising results suggest that payers and policy makers should continue to support implementation and benchmarking of patient engagement efforts across practices.

Electronic Health Information Exchange At Discharge From Inpatient Psychiatric Care In Acute Care Hospitals.

To address the complex health care needs of patients with mental illness-who commonly have co-occurring medical conditions and substance use disorders-it is critically important for providers to use electronic health records (EHRs) for health information exchange (HIE) when patients are transferred from inpatient psychiatric units in acute care hospitals. Efficient and timely HIE is necessary to ensure that patients receive adequate and informed follow-up care. This study examined the percentage of inpatient psychiatric units that reported using EHRs for HIE at transfers of care and hospital characteristics associated with that use. We linked national data from the Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting Program of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, and state mental health privacy laws. In 2016 the use of electronic HIE upon transfer from psychiatric units lagged behind the corresponding overall use rates from acute care hospitals (56.3 percent versus 88 percent), with wide variation across states. Hospital size and accountable care organization participation were associated with electronic HIE, but a state's having mental health privacy laws more stringent than the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act did not. Given these results, policy efforts to incentivize the use of electronic HIE in psychiatric settings should be strengthened.