Understanding increasing rates of psychiatric hospital detentions in England: development and preliminary testing of an explanatory model.
In-patient treatment
detentions
mental health act
psychiatry and law
risk assessment
Journal
BJPsych open
ISSN: 2056-4724
Titre abrégé: BJPsych Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101667931
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Aug 2020
14 Aug 2020
Historique:
entrez:
15
8
2020
pubmed:
15
8
2020
medline:
15
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The steep rise in the rate of psychiatric hospital detentions in England is poorly understood. To identify explanations for the rise in detentions in England since 1983; to test their plausibility and support from evidence; to develop an explanatory model for the rise in detentions. Hypotheses to explain the rise in detentions were identified from previous literature and stakeholder consultation. We explored associations between national indicators for potential explanatory variables and detention rates in an ecological study. Relevant research was scoped and the plausibility of each hypothesis was rated. Finally, a logic model was developed to illustrate likely contributory factors and pathways to the increase in detentions. Seventeen hypotheses related to social, service, legal and data-quality factors. Hypotheses supported by available evidence were: changes in legal approaches to patients without decision-making capacity but not actively objecting to admission; demographic changes; increasing psychiatric morbidity. Reductions in the availability or quality of community mental health services and changes in police practice may have contributed to the rise in detentions. Hypothesised factors not supported by evidence were: changes in community crisis care, compulsory community treatment and prescribing practice. Evidence was ambiguous or lacking for other explanations, including the impact of austerity measures and reductions in National Health Service in-patient bed numbers. Better data are needed about the characteristics and service contexts of those detained. Our logic model highlights likely contributory factors to the rise in detentions in England, priorities for future research and potential policy targets for reducing detentions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The steep rise in the rate of psychiatric hospital detentions in England is poorly understood.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
To identify explanations for the rise in detentions in England since 1983; to test their plausibility and support from evidence; to develop an explanatory model for the rise in detentions.
METHOD
METHODS
Hypotheses to explain the rise in detentions were identified from previous literature and stakeholder consultation. We explored associations between national indicators for potential explanatory variables and detention rates in an ecological study. Relevant research was scoped and the plausibility of each hypothesis was rated. Finally, a logic model was developed to illustrate likely contributory factors and pathways to the increase in detentions.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seventeen hypotheses related to social, service, legal and data-quality factors. Hypotheses supported by available evidence were: changes in legal approaches to patients without decision-making capacity but not actively objecting to admission; demographic changes; increasing psychiatric morbidity. Reductions in the availability or quality of community mental health services and changes in police practice may have contributed to the rise in detentions. Hypothesised factors not supported by evidence were: changes in community crisis care, compulsory community treatment and prescribing practice. Evidence was ambiguous or lacking for other explanations, including the impact of austerity measures and reductions in National Health Service in-patient bed numbers.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Better data are needed about the characteristics and service contexts of those detained. Our logic model highlights likely contributory factors to the rise in detentions in England, priorities for future research and potential policy targets for reducing detentions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32792034
doi: 10.1192/bjo.2020.64
pii: S2056472420000642
pmc: PMC7453796
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e88Références
BMJ. 2009 Feb 23;338:b375
pubmed: 19237405
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Jul 11;13:71
pubmed: 23842533
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2016 May;51(5):703-11
pubmed: 26886264
Stat Med. 1996 Feb 28;15(4):361-87
pubmed: 8668867
Psychiatr Serv. 2011 May;62(5):471-6
pubmed: 21532071
BMJ. 2011 Jul 05;343:d3736
pubmed: 21729994
Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Apr;6(4):305-317
pubmed: 30846354
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2020 Jan - Feb;68:101506
pubmed: 32033706
Br J Psychiatry. 2020 Jun;216(6):314-322
pubmed: 30761976
JRSM Open. 2018 Apr 18;9(4):2054270418758570
pubmed: 29707225
BMJ. 2008 Jun 30;337:a448
pubmed: 18595931
Proc R Soc Med. 1965 May;58:295-300
pubmed: 14283879
Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Dec;6(12):1039-1053
pubmed: 31777340
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Dec;147:324-31
pubmed: 26623942
Addiction. 2019 Jun;114(6):1015-1023
pubmed: 30597667
Psychiatry Res. 2015 Jan 30;225(1-2):14-30
pubmed: 25466227
Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 May;6(5):403-417
pubmed: 30954479
Behav Sci Law. 2013 Jan-Feb;31(1):125-40
pubmed: 23296543
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2011 Aug;261(5):377-86
pubmed: 21181181
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 Apr;70(4):339-45
pubmed: 26573235
BJPsych Bull. 2018 Aug;42(4):146-151
pubmed: 29792390
Psychol Med. 2014 Apr;44(5):997-1004
pubmed: 23795603
EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Apr 09;10:58-67
pubmed: 31193820
Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Dec;5(12):1013-1022
pubmed: 30391280
BJPsych Open. 2019 Apr 24;5(3):e37
pubmed: 31530313
BJPsych Open. 2019 Nov 27;5(6):e102
pubmed: 31771677
Br J Psychiatry. 2010 Mar;196(3):179-85
pubmed: 20194537