Multifaceted Inpatient Psychiatry Approach to Reducing Readmissions: A Pilot Study

ABSTRACT:  Context: Access to psychiatric services, particularly inpatient psychiatric care, is limited and lacks comprehensiveness in rural areas. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact on readmission rates of a multifaceted inpatient psychiatry approach (MIPA) offered in a rural hospital. Methods: Readmissions within 30 days of patients who were admitted to an inpatient psychiatric unit using a MIPA model of care (N = 147) were compared to readmissions of a comparison group of patients who were admitted prior to the adoption of the MIPA (N = 37). Case mix differences were adjusted using multiple logistic regression analysis (N = 184). Findings: Patients treated in the MIPA model of care had lower odds of readmission within 30 days (odds ratio 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.87, P < .03). Conclusions: Effective inpatient psychiatric care can be provided in rural hospitals.     

Review of psychiatric services to mentally disordered offenders around the Pacific Rim

This article was commissioned to collate and review forensic psychiatric services provided in a number of key Pacific Rim locations in the hope that it will assist in future dialogue about service development. The Board of the Pacific Rim College of Psychiatrists identified experts in forensic psychiatry from Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, and the US. Each contributor provided an account of issues in their jurisdiction, including mental health services to mentally disordered offenders in prison, competence or fitness to stand trial, legal insanity as a defense at trial, diminished responsibility, and special forensic services available, including forensic hospitals and community forensic mental health services. Responses have been collated and are presented topic by topic and country by country within the body of this review. The availability of mental health screening and psychiatric in‐reach or forensic liaison services within prisons differed considerably between countries, as did provisioning of community forensic mental health and rehabilitation services. Diversion of mentally disordered offenders to forensic, state, or hybrid hospitals was common. Legal constructs of criminal responsibility (insanity defense) and fitness to stand trial (“disability”) are almost universally recognized, although variably used. Disparities between unmet needs and resourcing available were common themes. The legislative differences between contributing countries with respect to the mental health law and criminal law relating to mentally disordered offenders are relatively subtle. The major differences lie in operationalizing and resourcing forensic services.