Involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation - differences and similarities between patients detained under the mental health act and according to the legal guardianship legislation.
Humans
Female
Male
Legal Guardians
/ legislation & jurisprudence
Retrospective Studies
Commitment of Mentally Ill
/ legislation & jurisprudence
Adult
Middle Aged
Germany
Hospitals, Psychiatric
/ legislation & jurisprudence
Mental Disorders
/ psychology
Hospitalization
/ legislation & jurisprudence
Involuntary Commitment
/ legislation & jurisprudence
Coercion
Involuntary hospitalisation
Legal guardianship
Machine learning
Mental Health Act
Random Forest
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Jun 2024
13 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
20
09
2023
accepted:
05
06
2024
medline:
14
6
2024
pubmed:
14
6
2024
entrez:
13
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation occurs under different legal premises. According to German law, detention under the Mental Health Act (MHA) is possible in cases of imminent danger of self-harm or harm to others, while detention according to the legal guardianship legislation (LGL) serves to prevent self-harm if there is considerable but not necessarily imminent danger. This study aims to compare clinical, sociodemographic and environmental socioeconomic differences and similarities between patients hospitalised under either the MHA or LGL. We conducted a retrospective health records analysis of all involuntarily hospitalised cases in the four psychiatric hospitals of the city of Cologne, Germany, in 2011. Of the 1,773 cases, 87.3% were detained under the MHA of the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia and 6.4% were hospitalised according to the federal LGL. Another 6.3% of the cases were originally admitted under the MHA, but the legal basis of detention was converted to LGL during the inpatient psychiatric stay (MHA→LGL cases). We compared sociodemographic, clinical, systemic and environmental socioeconomic (ESED) variables of the three groups by means of descriptive statistics. We also trained and tested a machine learning-based algorithm to predict class membership of the involuntary modes of psychiatric inpatient care. Cases with an admission under the premises of LGL lived less often on their own, and they were more often retired compared to MHA cases. They more often had received previous outpatient or inpatient treatment than MHA cases, they were more often diagnosed with a psychotic disorder and they lived in neighbourhoods that were on average more socially advantaged. MHA→LGL cases were on average older and more often retired than MHA cases. More often, they had a main diagnosis of an organic mental disorder compared to both MHA and LGL cases. Also, they less often received previous psychiatric inpatient treatment compared to LGL cases. The reason for detention (self-harm or harm to others) did not differ between the three groups. The proportion of LGL and MHA cases differed between the four hospitals. Effect sizes were mostly small and the balanced accuracy of the Random Forest was low. We found some plausible differences in patient characteristics depending on the legal foundation of the involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation. The differences relate to clinical, sociodemographic and socioeconomical issues. However, the low effect sizes and the limited accuracy of the machine learning models indicate that the investigated variables do not sufficiently explain the respective choice of the legal framework. In addition, we found some indication for possibly different interpretation and handling of the premises of the law in practice. Our findings pose the need for further research in this field.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation occurs under different legal premises. According to German law, detention under the Mental Health Act (MHA) is possible in cases of imminent danger of self-harm or harm to others, while detention according to the legal guardianship legislation (LGL) serves to prevent self-harm if there is considerable but not necessarily imminent danger. This study aims to compare clinical, sociodemographic and environmental socioeconomic differences and similarities between patients hospitalised under either the MHA or LGL.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective health records analysis of all involuntarily hospitalised cases in the four psychiatric hospitals of the city of Cologne, Germany, in 2011. Of the 1,773 cases, 87.3% were detained under the MHA of the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia and 6.4% were hospitalised according to the federal LGL. Another 6.3% of the cases were originally admitted under the MHA, but the legal basis of detention was converted to LGL during the inpatient psychiatric stay (MHA→LGL cases). We compared sociodemographic, clinical, systemic and environmental socioeconomic (ESED) variables of the three groups by means of descriptive statistics. We also trained and tested a machine learning-based algorithm to predict class membership of the involuntary modes of psychiatric inpatient care.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Cases with an admission under the premises of LGL lived less often on their own, and they were more often retired compared to MHA cases. They more often had received previous outpatient or inpatient treatment than MHA cases, they were more often diagnosed with a psychotic disorder and they lived in neighbourhoods that were on average more socially advantaged. MHA→LGL cases were on average older and more often retired than MHA cases. More often, they had a main diagnosis of an organic mental disorder compared to both MHA and LGL cases. Also, they less often received previous psychiatric inpatient treatment compared to LGL cases. The reason for detention (self-harm or harm to others) did not differ between the three groups. The proportion of LGL and MHA cases differed between the four hospitals. Effect sizes were mostly small and the balanced accuracy of the Random Forest was low.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We found some plausible differences in patient characteristics depending on the legal foundation of the involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation. The differences relate to clinical, sociodemographic and socioeconomical issues. However, the low effect sizes and the limited accuracy of the machine learning models indicate that the investigated variables do not sufficiently explain the respective choice of the legal framework. In addition, we found some indication for possibly different interpretation and handling of the premises of the law in practice. Our findings pose the need for further research in this field.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38872132
doi: 10.1186/s12888-024-05892-z
pii: 10.1186/s12888-024-05892-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
442Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Dressing H, Salize HJ. Compulsory admission of mentally ill patients in European Union Member States. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2004;39:797–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-004-0814-9
doi: 10.1007/s00127-004-0814-9
pubmed: 15669660
Sheridan Rains L, Zenina T, Dias MC, Jones R, Jeffreys S, Branthonne-Foster S, et al. Variations in patterns of involuntary hospitalisation and in legal frameworks: an international comparative study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6:403–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30090-2
doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30090-2
pubmed: 30954479
pmcid: 6475657
Wickremsinhe MN. Emergency involuntary treatment law for people with mental disorders: a comparative analysis of legislation in LMICs. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2018;56:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.09.003
doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.09.003
pubmed: 29701593
Bundesamt für Justiz. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) § 1831 Freiheitsentziehende Unterbringung und freiheitsentziehende Maßnahmen.
Bundesamt für Justiz. Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen und in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit (FamFG) § 321 Einholung eines Gutachtens.
Bundesamt für Justiz. Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen und in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit (FamFG) § 312 Unterbringungssachen.
Bundesamt für Justiz. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB), § 1832 Ärztliche Zwangsmaßnahmen.
Michael L. Perlin. ‘Striking for the Guardians and Protectors of the Mind’: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Mental Disabilities and the Future of Guardianship Law; 2012.
Putkonen H, Vollm B. Compulsory psychiatric detention and treatment in Finland. Psychiatr bull. 2007;31:101–3. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.106.009472
doi: 10.1192/pb.bp.106.009472
Huber J, Aguirrebarrena G, Ryan CJ. Algorithm for the use of the Guardianship Act, the Mental Health Act and the Public Health Act in emergency departments in New South Wales. Emerg Med Australas. 2022;34:34–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13819
doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.13819
pubmed: 34258869
Tsoh J, Peisah C, Narumoto J, Wongpakaran N, Wongpakaran T, O’Neill N, et al. Comparisons of guardianship laws and surrogate decision-making practices in China, Japan, Thailand and Australia: a review by the Asia Consortium, International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA) capacity taskforce. Int Psychogeriatr. 2015;27:1029–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104161021400266X
doi: 10.1017/S104161021400266X
pubmed: 25573420
Morris NP. Detention without data: Public Tracking of Civil commitment. Psychiatr Serv. 2020;71:741–4. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.202000212
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000212
pubmed: 32438888
Rissmiller DJ, Musser E, Rhoades W, Rissmiller FR, Steer RA. A survey of use of a durable power of attorney to admit geropsychiatric patients. Psychiatr Serv. 2001;52:98–100. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.52.1.98
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.52.1.98
pubmed: 11141537
Walker S, Mackay E, Barnett P, Sheridan Rains L, Leverton M, Dalton-Locke C, et al. Clinical and social factors associated with increased risk for involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6:1039–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30406-7
doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30406-7
pubmed: 31777340
pmcid: 7029280
Weich S, McBride O, Twigg L, Duncan C, Keown P, Crepaz-Keay D, et al. Variation in compulsory psychiatric inpatient admission in England: a cross-classified, multilevel analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017;4:619–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30207-9
doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30207-9
pubmed: 28647537
McSwiggan S, Meares S, Porter M. Decision-making capacity evaluation in adult guardianship: a systematic review. Int Psychogeriatr. 2016;28:373–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610215001490
doi: 10.1017/S1041610215001490
pubmed: 26412394
Schmitz-Buhl M, Gairing SK, Rietz C, Häussermann P, Zielasek J, Gouzoulis-Mayfrank E. A retrospective analysis of determinants of involuntary psychiatric in-patient treatment. BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19:127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2096-5
doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2096-5
pubmed: 31035963
pmcid: 6489329
Karasch O, Schmitz-Buhl M, Mennicken R, Zielasek J, Gouzoulis-Mayfrank E. Identification of risk factors for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization: using environmental socioeconomic data and methods of machine learning to improve prediction. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20:401. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02803-w
doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02803-w
pubmed: 32770970
pmcid: 7414567
Peters SJ, Schmitz-Buhl M, Karasch O, Zielasek J, Gouzoulis-Mayfrank E. Determinants of compulsory hospitalisation at admission and in the course of inpatient treatment in people with mental disorders-a retrospective analysis of health records of the four psychiatric hospitals of the city of Cologne. BMC Psychiatry. 2022;22:471. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04107-7
doi: 10.1186/s12888-022-04107-7
pubmed: 35836146
pmcid: 9284734
World Health Organization (WHO). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision. https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en . Accessed 27 Sep 2020.
RWI, Microm. RWI-GEO-GRID: Socio-economic data on grid level- scientific Use file (wave 8). RWI – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research; 2019.
Breidenbach P, Eilers L, RWI-GEO-GRID. Socio-economic data on grid level. Jahrb Natl Stat. 2018;238:609–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2017-0171
doi: 10.1515/jbnst-2017-0171
Maremmani AGI, Rugani F, Bacciardi S, Rovai L, Pacini M, Dell’Osso L, Maremmani I. Does dual diagnosis affect violence and moderate/superficial self-harm in heroin addiction at treatment entry? J Addict Med. 2014;8:116–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000019
doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000019
pubmed: 24569303
Lee-Winn AE, Mendelson T, Johnson RM. Associations of personality traits with marijuana use in a nationally representative sample of adolescents in the United States. Addict Behav Rep. 2018;8:51–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2018.06.005
doi: 10.1016/j.abrep.2018.06.005
pubmed: 29992183
pmcid: 6036859
Gouzoulis-Mayfrank E. Doppeldiagnose psychose und sucht. Von den Grundlagen Zur Praxis. [Dual diagnosis of psychosis and addiction. From principles to practice]. Nervenarzt. 2004;75:642–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-004-1692-9
doi: 10.1007/s00115-004-1692-9
pubmed: 15293008
Fazel S, Långström N, Hjern A, Grann M, Lichtenstein P. Schizophrenia, substance abuse, and violent crime. JAMA. 2009;301:2016–23. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.675
doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.675
pubmed: 19454640
pmcid: 4905518
Bender R, Lange S. Adjusting for multiple testing–when and how? J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:343–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00314-0
doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00314-0
pubmed: 11297884
Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001;45:5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324
Lemon SC, Roy J, Clark MA, Friedmann PD, Rakowski W. Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: methodological review and comparison with logistic regression. Ann Behav Med. 2003;26:172–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2603_02
doi: 10.1207/S15324796ABM2603_02
pubmed: 14644693
Marchi M, Galli G, Fiore G, Mackinnon A, Mattei G, Starace F, Galeazzi GM. Machine-learning for prescription patterns: Random Forest in the prediction of dose and number of antipsychotics prescribed to people with Schizophrenia. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2022;20:450–61. https://doi.org/10.9758/cpn.2022.20.3.450
doi: 10.9758/cpn.2022.20.3.450
pubmed: 35879029
pmcid: 9329108
Maito MA, Santamaría-García H, Moguilner S, Possin KL, Godoy ME, Avila-Funes JA, et al. Classification of Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia using routine clinical and cognitive measures across multicentric underrepresented samples: a cross sectional observational study. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2022.100387
doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2022.100387
pubmed: 36583137
Danielsen AA, Fenger MHJ, Østergaard SD, Nielbo KL, Mors O. Predicting mechanical restraint of psychiatric inpatients by applying machine learning on electronic health data. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2019;140:147–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13061
doi: 10.1111/acps.13061
pubmed: 31209866
Wilkinson L. Statistical methods in psychology journals: guidelines and explanations. Am Psychol. 1999;54:594–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594
Shah AD, Bartlett JW, Carpenter J, Nicholas O, Hemingway H. Comparison of random forest and parametric imputation models for imputing missing data using MICE: a CALIBER study. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179:764–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt312
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt312
pubmed: 24589914
pmcid: 3939843
van Buuren S. Flexible imputation of missing data. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2021.
Chawla NV, Bowyer KW, Hall LO, Kegelmeyer WP. SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. jair. 2002;16:321–57. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.953
doi: 10.1613/jair.953
Jones N, Gius BK, Shields M, Collings S, Rosen C, Munson M. Investigating the impact of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization on youth and young adult trust and help-seeking in pathways to care. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-021-02048-2
doi: 10.1007/s00127-021-02048-2
pubmed: 34427699
pmcid: 10105343
Rüsch N, Müller M, Lay B, Corrigan PW, Zahn R, Schönenberger T, et al. Emotional reactions to involuntary psychiatric hospitalization and stigma-related stress among people with mental illness. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014;264:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-013-0412-5
doi: 10.1007/s00406-013-0412-5
pubmed: 23689838
Henking T. Die Reform Des Betreuungsrechts. [The reform of guardianship law]. Nervenarzt. 2022;93:1125–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-022-01355-6
doi: 10.1007/s00115-022-01355-6
pubmed: 36102927
pmcid: 9630173
Hassanzadeh R, Farhadian M, Rafieemehr H. Hospital mortality prediction in traumatic injuries patients: comparing different SMOTE-based machine learning algorithms. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23:101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01920-w
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01920-w
pubmed: 37087425
pmcid: 10122327
Kumar V, Lalotra GS, Sasikala P, Rajput DS, Kaluri R, Lakshmanna K, et al. Addressing Binary classification over Class Imbalanced Clinical datasets using computationally Intelligent techniques. Healthc (Basel). 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071293
doi: 10.3390/healthcare10071293
Silva M, Antunes A, Azeredo-Lopes S, Loureiro A, Saraceno B, Caldas-de-Almeida JM, Cardoso G. Factors associated with involuntary psychiatric hospitalization in Portugal. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2021;15:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-021-00460-4
doi: 10.1186/s13033-021-00460-4
pubmed: 33879207
pmcid: 8056508
Lehmann I, Zielasek J, Blumenröder T, Engemann S, Vrinssen J, Gaebel W, et al. Development and implementation of quality indicators in a group of nine psychiatric hospitals. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2023;182–183:8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2023.09.003
doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2023.09.003
pubmed: 37884419
Steinert T, Hirsch S, Flammer E. Monitoring Von Zwangsmaßnahmen Und Zwangsbehandlungen in Deutschland. [Monitoring of coercive measures and compulsory treatment in Germany]. Nervenarzt. 2022;93:1105–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-022-01349-4
doi: 10.1007/s00115-022-01349-4
pubmed: 35819484