Implementing a Community Model of Mental Health Care in Chile: Impact on Psychiatric Emergency Visits
Abstract
Objective:
The community model of mental health care (CMMHC) is recommended as the best way to organize mental health care, but evidence of its successful implementation and effectiveness is scarce, particularly in resource-poor settings. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of CMMHC on the rate of psychiatric emergency visits in Santiago, Chile.
Methods:
The rate of psychiatric emergency visits from 2006 to 2011 was compared between two health care administrative districts: district 1 (D1), in which CMMHC was being systematically implemented, and D2, where CMMHC implementation was very limited and inconsistent. In addition, rates of psychiatric emergency visits in ten D1 municipalities were compared by the degree to which they had implemented CMMHC.
Results:
Compared with D2, D1 had higher rates of psychiatric emergency visits during the observation period. In D1, the rate of visits per 100,000 inhabitants declined from 541 in 2006 to 414 in 2011. In D2, the rate increased from 104 in 2006 to 130 in 2011. In D1 municipalities, the reduction in the rate of psychiatric emergency visits was greater in those with well-implemented CMMHC compared with those with partially implemented CMMHC. When distance to the emergency room was taken into account, the 2011 rate of emergency visits in the ten D1 municipalities was 21% (p<.01) lower in those with well-implemented CMMHC than in those with partially implemented CMMHC.
Conclusions:
CMMHC implementation leads to reduction in psychiatric emergency visits, which are burdensome to both users and providers. Results support CMMHC implementation in resource-poor settings.
Mental health problems are the leading contributor to the global burden of disability, representing 29% of the total years lived with disability worldwide (1). The relevance of these problems has been established in high-, middle-, and low-income countries (2). In recent years, strategies to organize mental health care have become oriented toward ambulatory mental health care (3). The World Health Organization actively supports the community model of mental health care (CMMHC) as the best way to organize mental health care (4,5). Even though there are examples of successful implementation of CMMHC in countries with various levels of income (6–9), including Latin America (10), implementation as a national strategy is lacking in most low- and middle-income countries (5).
Evaluations have provided some evidence of the effectiveness of various aspects of CMMHC (3,11–14). However, evidence is lacking about the impact of CMMHC as a whole. This lack is even more notable in middle- and low-income countries, where evidence is needed to inform mental health policies. One frequently studied outcome in these evaluations is reduction in the rate of hospitalizations (15). However, use of this outcome may not be appropriate in resource-poor contexts, where availability of beds and day hospital care are limited (16). In these cases, improvements in quality of care or remission and recovery of patients with mental health problems may not be reflected in variations in hospitalization rates. Furthermore, other barriers, such as higher or lower thresholds of referral, may influence hospitalization rates, affecting the utility of this variable as an outcome indicator.
In settings with limited availability of psychiatric beds, the rate of psychiatric emergency visits may more accurately represent the impact of interventions (17,18). In addition to documenting actual psychiatric emergencies, the rate of psychiatric emergency visits reflects unresolved demand that has not been addressed in ambulatory care. For example, changes in the rate of psychiatric emergency visits have been observed as a result of changes in the structure of and available resources in the mental health system (19).
During this study (2006–2011), Chile was classified as an upper-middle-income country; however, the public mental health care sector continues to deal with problems comparable to those in middle-income countries (20). The mental health system in Chile is largely public and free of charge to users; most services are provided at the primary care level, from which patients can be referred to secondary care if needed. Patients can access emergency services without referral. The national program for mental health, which was enacted in 2001, proposes the progressive implementation of CMMHC (21). However, various levels of implementation exist across the country, and formal evaluations of the impact of CMMHC have not been conducted.
The purpose of our study was to compare the use of psychiatric emergency services in two geographic areas with higher and lower implementation of CMMHC over a six-year follow-up. Because a high rate of psychiatric emergency visits can be viewed as an indicator of a failure to provide adequate and effective mental health care (22), we hypothesized that more complete implementation of CMMHC would result in lower use of psychiatric emergency services.
Methods
Two comparable geographic and health care administrative districts were compared: the Southern Metropolitan Health Service (district 1 [D1]), which has implemented CMMHC progressively and systematically, and the Southeastern Metropolitan Health Service (D2), which has mostly traditional psychiatric and mental health services based on psychiatric hospitalization and outpatient care adjacent to the hospital. Both districts are large, urban, low- to middle-income sectors located in Southern Metropolitan Santiago, delivering health care to a total of approximately one million inhabitants. Municipalities in D1 are in different stages of development of CMMHC. Each municipality has its own network of primary health care. However, across both territories, only a single emergency room in a general hospital, located in D1, offers specialized psychiatric care. Using data from 2006 to 2011, we compared the number of psychiatric emergency visits in the two health care districts. In addition, we compared D1 municipalities by degree of CMMHC implementation. One municipality was excluded because it has a different administrative government. Overall, ten D1 municipalities were studied.
Sources of Data
Information on psychiatric emergency visits was obtained from routinely collected data from the emergency room. Diagnostic information according to the ICD-10 was provided by treating clinicians, and other patient information was provided by administrative personnel. The identity and address of the patient were verified by using the patient’s national ID card and previous health records. Data on population size of the districts and municipalities during the study were obtained from the National Public Health Insurance database (23). Figure 1 presents information on the population sizes of municipalities in D1. [Tables with demographic data for D1 municipalities are included in an online supplement to this article.] Distance from a central point in each municipality to the emergency room was measured in linear kilometers by using Google Earth software and included in the analyses.
FIGURE 1. Municipalities in health district 1 (D1) in metropolitan Santiago, Chilea
aCMMHC, community model of mental health care; hab, inhabitants; km, kilometers
Definition of Psychiatric Emergency Visit
A psychiatric emergency visit was defined as a visit to any hospital emergency room in the two districts that required a psychiatric evaluation. Visits that were not made for a psychiatric reason were included as long as the visit involved a psychiatric evaluation, and visits that were made for a psychiatric reason were included, even if the final diagnosis was not of a psychiatric disorder. In a sensitivity analysis, a second definition of psychiatric emergency visits was used: only those in which the final diagnosis was F00–F99, according to ICD-10. The results of the first analysis are reported as primary results. In the Chilean context, most visits to the emergency room are initiated by users themselves, who come to the emergency room directly and are not referred by professionals. The patients are attended by residents in psychiatry, who make the diagnosis with the support of attending psychiatrists.
Implementation of CMMHC
CMMHC has been conceptualized in Chile in ways consistent with definitions provided by various authors. Characteristics of the model include delivery of health services that are based on the needs of a local population (public health perspective), are geographically accessible and acceptable (including services that accommodate patient preferences for outpatient care), are based on the objectives and strengths of persons with mental health issues, consider and promote use of a wide and diverse network of community resources and services that have appropriate capabilities, are evidence based, and are focused on recovery and active participation (including participation of persons in decisions related to management of their own mental health problems) (24,25).
Implementation of CMMHC in D1 began in 2005. D1 is recognized at the national level for having the only health service that has an explicit community focus in teaching mental health professionals (26). It has implemented a psychiatric team that provides regular consultancy to the health centers. The health service has assigned responsibility for psychiatric care territorially in each municipality to specific teams in secondary care and has worked to improve continuity of care from the hospital to outpatient care, with the same teams attending to the patient in both settings. In D1, implementation of CMMHC has varied between the ten municipalities. In D2, mental health services are traditionally organized, and most specialized services are provided in the outpatient department of the psychiatric hospital. In D2, development of community-based services, such as psychiatric consultations, is limited. However, we have no reason to assume that the two districts had a significantly different patient profile.
To compare the ten D1 municipalities by degree of CMMHC implementation, they were categorized dichotomously, for each year of study, into those that had “implemented” or “partially implemented” CMMHC. Three key informants, each with more than ten years of service in the health district, classified the degree of implementation on the basis of a shared understanding of the concept of CMMHC. The aspects assessed were whether the responsibility of providing specialized outpatient care was territorially organized, whether a community mental health team provided consultancy services, and whether there was continuity of care from hospital care to outpatient services. There was 78% overall agreement among the three informants, and disagreements were settled by consensus. Most of the disagreements were related to defining which year community teams were incorporated in the respective district.
All ten D1 municipalities had nonspecialized primary care teams that performed screening, diagnosis, and initial treatment (including medication and counseling) of common mental disorders. Most municipalities had access to specialist consultancy for case management, which varied by year of the study. Some municipalities had specialized multiprofessional community mental health services. Psychiatric units for short-stay inpatient care with a limited number of beds, as well as day hospital units, were available. None of the D1 municipalities had early intervention teams, although some had access to services similar to those offered by assertive community treatment teams. In some municipalities, community residential care instead of long-stay inpatient care was available.
Statistical Analysis
Rate and incidence rate ratio (iRR) of psychiatric emergency visits—referring to the ratio of the rates of such visits between the two districts—were calculated by population for both health districts and for each year studied. The rate of psychiatric emergency visits for each district and for each municipality was studied by using quasi-Poisson regression models. In addition, analysis of psychiatric emergency visits between districts and among municipalities was modeled by using a random effect for intercept in order to account for dependency among repeated measures. In this case, a Poisson regression model was allowed by software for the multilevel analysis used (Imer4 for R, version 3.1.1). By using the exponent of regression coefficients, iRRs between municipalities with different levels of development of CMMHC were obtained. To test the hypothesis that municipalities with adequate development (classified as “implemented”) showed a faster decrease in the rate of psychiatric emergency visits, an interaction term between year and “implemented” or “partially implemented” CMMHC was explored. Univariate and multivariate models were conducted, and distance to the emergency room was included as a possible confounding variable.
Two sensitivity analyses were performed. One compared results by using both definitions of psychiatric emergency visits described above. The second analysis used the number of patients rather than the number of visits as the outcome. The number of patients was determined by reviewing all visits for each year according individual’s national identification number. The results of these analyses were robust, and neither the change in definition of visits nor the change in the outcome affected main results.
Results
Total number of psychiatric emergency visits across both districts varied from 4,379 in 2006 to 3,615 in 2011. As a proportion of all emergency visits, the proportion of psychiatric emergency visits did not change significantly from 2006 to 2011: 2.8% of total visits (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.6–3.0).
Figure 1 presents information on the geographical distribution of the ten D1 municipalities, distances to the emergency room in kilometers by municipality, population assigned to each team, and years of implementation of CMMHC.
Figure 2 shows the rate of psychiatric emergency visits per 100,000 inhabitants for both districts and the nonadjusted iRRs between both districts. D1 had higher rates of psychiatric emergency visits than D2 during the entire observation period, although a declining tendency was noted, from 541 psychiatric emergency visits in 2006 to 414 in 2011. For D2, the rate increased from 104 in 2006 to 130 in 2011. As the bottom panel in Figure 2 shows, the nonadjusted iRR between the two districts showed a declining tendency, from 4.7 [CI=4.1–5.5] in 2006 to 3.2 [CI=2.6–4.1] in 2011. This finding indicates that the rate of psychiatric emergency visits in D1 was 3.2 times higher than in D2.
FIGURE 2. Rates of psychiatric emergency visits (PEVs) and incidence rate ratios (iRRs) in two health districts in metropolitan Santiago, Chilea
aDuring the study period, district 1 was implementing the community model of mental health care (CMMHC), whereas district 2 was not. Dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals, circles represent observations, and solid lines represent best fit (trend).
Figure 3 shows the comparison of D1 municipalities and the iRRs adjusted by distance to the emergency room for municipalities with implemented versus partially implemented CMMHC. The rate of psychiatric emergency visits per 100,000 inhabitants was higher in municipalities with more fully implemented CMMHC. The rates were reduced in municipalities with more fully implemented CMMHC and partially implemented CMMHC, but the reduction was smaller in those with partially implemented CMMHC.
FIGURE 3. Rates of psychiatric emergency visits (PEVs) and incidence rate ratios (iRRs) in ten municipalities in health district 1 in metropolitan Santiago, Chilea
aIRRs adjusted for distance to the emergency room. CMMHC, community model of mental health care. Dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals, circles represent observations, and solid lines represent best fit (trend).
Table 1 presents estimated iRRs from the regression analysis comparing the D1 municipalities with different degrees of CMMHC implementation. In the univariate analysis with random effects, psychiatric emergency visits decreased 5% annually across D1. Implemented CMMHC was associated with a lower rate of psychiatric emergency visits (17% lower than the rate in municipalities with partially implemented CMMHC). For every additional kilometer of distance to the emergency room, the rate decreased 5%. The random-effects model took structural factors into account, which is why these results differ from those presented in Figure 3.
| Unadjusted model | Adjusted modelb | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | iRR | 95% CI | iRR | 95% CI |
| Year | .95 | .94–.96 | .95 | .95–.96 |
| CMMHC | .83 | .79–.88 | .96 | .90–1.01 |
| Distance to emergency room | .95 | .93–.96 | .95 | .93–.96 |
| Year of CMMHC implementation | ||||
| 2006 | 1.02 | .96–1.09 | ||
| 2007 | .97 | .92–1.03 | ||
| 2008 | .92 | .87–.98 | ||
| 2009 | .88 | .82–.94 | ||
| 2010 | .83 | .76–.91 | ||
| 2011 | .79 | .71–.88 | ||
a
Ratios of the rates of visits between health district 1 municipalities with implemented versus partially implemented CMMHC
b
Adjusted for distance; interaction p<.01
In the adjusted model in Table 1, the iRRs for the year and distance variables remained almost identical to those in the random-effects model. However, the presence of implemented CMMHC was no longer significant, whereas the interaction between CMMHC and year was significant (p<.01). This finding indicates that the “protective effect” of CMMHC increased over time. In 2006, no differences in rates of psychiatric emergency visits were found between districts with implemented and partially implemented CMMHC, whereas in 2011, the rate in municipalities with implemented CMMHC was 21% lower than in municipalities with partially implemented CMMHC. [The crude data used to create figures and models are presented in a table in the online supplement .] The results of the sensitivity analyses did not change our main findings (results available on request).
Discussion
The findings of this ecological study from metropolitan Santiago show that the implementation of CMMHC was associated with a progressive reduction in psychiatric emergency visits, at both the district and municipality levels. Our findings are important because we analyzed the implementation of the CMMHC model as a whole, rather than only some of its components.
It is noteworthy that the district and the municipalities with greater development of CMMHC had higher rates of psychiatric emergency visits. However, this could be explained by structural elements, such as the shorter distance to the psychiatric emergency service for the municipalities in D1 compared with D2. Indeed, when the analysis controlled for distance, the association was reversed: implementation of CMMHC was associated with a lower rate of psychiatric emergency visits, and the association appeared to strengthen over time.
The reduction in emergency visits observed in areas in which CMMHC was implemented may be related to various aspects of the model. For example, more frequent follow-up of patients may result in more timely detection of worsening mental health status, allowing for elective instead of emergency interventions (27). Patients’ closer relationship with the psychiatric team can also provide them with a sense of security, allowing patients to contact the team during working hours instead of resorting to emergency care (28). Finally, better access to consultancy services at the primary care level has been shown to reduce the number of psychiatric hospitalizations by improving the capacity of the primary care clinicians to treating psychiatric patients (29).
Comparison With Other Studies
Thornicroft and Tansella (3) discussed the components of mental health care delivery in a systematic review, and they concluded that the components of CMMHC guarantee the balanced development of both community-based outpatient services and hospital-based services. Another systematic review addressed this issue by focusing on community mental health care interventions in low- and middle-income countries and concluded that, as in high-income countries, community mental health services are associated with better outcomes and lower costs (30). Similarly, a recent systematic review found that aspects of improved community care are associated with reduced readmission rates (31). None of the studies included, however, addressed the impact of implementation of CMMHC as a whole; they addressed only some of the model’s components.
As noted above, the most frequently used outcomes in the literature are rate of hospitalization and rehospitalization, whereas psychiatric emergency visits have been less studied. The little evidence that exists is heterogeneous: some studies have found a reduction in psychiatric emergency visits associated with implementation of community-based health care (32,33), and others, including systematic reviews, have found no difference (34,35). One Dutch study, the setting of which was similar to ours, found an increase in the rate of psychiatric emergency visits after the network of community mental health care was strengthened by the addition of psychiatric nurses (36).
The impact of structural changes in mental health care on the rate of psychiatric emergency visits has been studied in California, where increased availability of funds in the public mental health system through the Mental Health Services Act reduced the rate of voluntary psychiatric emergency visits in the short term; however, this effect was not sustained (19). In particular, patients in the full-service partnership model, which incorporates many CMMHC elements, had a reduced likelihood of resorting to psychiatric emergency services (22). In the same vein, a reduction in the availability of mental health services has been shown to be associated with in an increase in psychiatric emergency visits (37).
It should be noted that these studies have been conducted in specific settings and with specific populations—for example, among patients with severe psychiatric disorders or among homeless persons. Because our study included general psychiatric patients, comparability with other studies is limited. Moreover, the studies described above were conducted in high-income countries, where undoubtedly conditions are different from those in Chile, not only in terms of level of access to and quality of health care but also in education level and other characteristics of the population.
Limitations
Some limitations of our study should be taken into account when interpreting the findings. The study was ecological, and the analyses were not at the individual level but at the aggregate level (municipality and district). Even though data for 30,000 individual psychiatric emergency visits over six years were analyzed, the visits were grouped and analyzed as larger units for methodological reasons. This limited our ability to control for confounding factors and to draw conclusions at the individual level. One such factor may be disorder severity or the presence of certain diagnoses, such as personality disorders (38,39). However, we have no reason to assume that these factors would differ between the districts and municipalities. Second, the degree of CMMHC implementation was assessed dichotomously based on expert opinion, because there were no validated instruments available to assess CMMHC implementation.
Finally, even though distance to the emergency room was taken into consideration, other factors influencing physical access, such as opening times or cost and type of transport, were not included in the analyses.
Conclusions
The results show that CMMHC implementation was associated with a reduced rate of psychiatric emergency visits in metropolitan Santiago. The study demonstrated that implementation of this model can reduce psychiatric emergency visits, which are burdensome to both system users and providers. Future studies should investigate the impact of the model on different mental health outcomes, at both the ecological and individual levels.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.201600371.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 19.66 KB
References
1.
Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, et al: Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 382:1575–1586, 2013
2.
Patel V: Mental health in low- and middle-income countries. British Medical Bulletin 82:81–96, 2007
3.
Thornicroft G, Tansella M: Components of a modern mental health service: a pragmatic balance of community and hospital care: overview of systematic evidence. British Journal of Psychiatry 185:283–290, 2004
4.
Brundtland GH: From the World Health Organization—mental health: new understanding, new hope. JAMA 286:2391, 2001
5.
Jacob KS, Sharan P, Mirza I, et al: Mental health systems in countries: where are we now? Lancet 370:1061–1077, 2007
6.
Mowbray CT, Plum TB, Masterton T: Harbinger: II. deployment and evolution of assertive community treatment in Michigan. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 25:125–139, 1997
7.
Caldas de Almeida JM: Mental health services development in Latin America and the Caribbean: achievements, barriers and facilitating factors. International Health 5:15–18, 2013
8.
Cohen A, Eaton J, Radtke B, et al: Three models of community mental health services in low-income countries. International Journal of Mental Health Systems 5:3, 2011
9.
Drake RE, Latimer E: Lessons learned in developing community mental health care in North America. World Psychiatry 11:47–51, 2012
10.
Razzouk D, Gregório G, Antunes R, et al: Lessons learned in developing community mental health care in Latin American and Caribbean countries. World Psychiatry 11:191–195, 2012
11.
Burns T, Fioritti A, Holloway F, et al: Case management and assertive community treatment in Europe. Psychiatric Services 52:631–636, 2001
12.
Lim CG, Koh CW, Lee C, et al: Community psychiatry in Singapore: a pilot assertive community treatment (ACT) programme. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 34:100–104, 2005
13.
Wright N, Bartlett P, Callaghan P: A review of the literature on the historical development of community mental health services in the United Kingdom. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 15:229–237, 2008
14.
Hambridge JA, Rosen A: Assertive community treatment for the seriously mentally ill in suburban Sydney: a programme description and evaluation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 28:438–445, 1994
15.
Burns T, Catty J, Dash M, et al: Use of intensive case management to reduce time in hospital in people with severe mental illness: systematic review and meta-regression. BMJ 335:336, 2007
16.
World Atlas of Mental Health Resources [in Spanish]. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2001
17.
Snowden LR, Masland MC, Wallace NT, et al: Effects on outpatient and emergency mental health care of strict Medicaid early periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment enforcement. American Journal of Public Health 97:1951–1956, 2007
18.
Paradis M, Woogh C, Marcotte D, et al: Is psychiatric emergency service (PES) use increasing over time? International Journal of Mental Health Systems 3:3, 2009
19.
Bruckner TA, Yonsu K, Chakravarthy B, et al: Voluntary psychiatric emergencies in Los Angeles County after funding of California’s Mental Health Services Act. Psychiatric Services 63:808–814, 2012
20.
World Bank Country Classification. Washington, DC, World Bank
21.
Minoletti A, Zaccaria A: The National Mental Health Plan in Chile: 10 years of experience [in Spanish]. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública 18:346–358, 2005
22.
Brown TT, Chung J, Choi SS, et al: The impact of California’s full-service partnership program on mental health-related emergency department visits. Psychiatric Services 63:802–807, 2012
23.
Estimated Beneficiary Population National Health Fund by Commune and Income Group, Both Sexes, 2005–2012 [in Spanish]. Santiago, Chile, Fondo Nacional de Salud, 2014
24.
Drake RE, Szmukler G, Mueser KT, et al: Introduction to community mental health care; in Oxford Text of Community Mental Health. Edited by Thornicroft G, Szmukler G, Mueser KT, et al. Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2011
25.
Declaration of Caracas [in Spanish]. Caracas, Venezuela, Pan-American Health Organization, 1990. https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/Declaracion_de_Caracas.pdf
26.
Sepúlveda R, Ramírez J, Zitko P, et al: Implementing the community mental health care model in a large Latin-American urban area: the experience from Santiago, Chile. International Journal of Mental Health 42:62–72, 2012
27.
Lee SY, Kim KH, Kim T, et al: Outpatient follow-up visit after hospital discharge lowers risk of rehospitalization in patients with schizophrenia: a nationwide population-based study. Psychiatry Investigation 12:425–433, 2015
28.
Omer S, Priebe S, Giacco D: Continuity across inpatient and outpatient mental health care or specialisation of teams? A systematic review. European Psychiatry 30:258–270, 2015
29.
Tyrer P, Ferguson B, Wadsworth J: Liaison psychiatry in general practice: the comprehensive collaborative model. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 81:359–363, 1990
30.
Wiley-Exley E: Evaluations of community mental health care in low- and middle-income countries: a 10-year review of the literature. Social Science and Medicine 64:1231–1241, 2007
31.
Kalseth J, Lassemo E, Wahlbeck K, et al: Psychiatric readmissions and their association with environmental and health system characteristics: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Psychiatry 16:376, 2016
32.
Tibbo P, Chue P, Wright E: Hospital outcome measures following assertive community treatment in Edmonton, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 44:276–279, 1999
33.
Lehman AF, Dixon LB, Kernan E, et al: A randomized trial of assertive community treatment for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry 54:1038–1043, 1997
34.
Dieterich M, Irving CB, Park B, et al: Intensive case management for severe mental illness. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 10:CD007906, 2010
35.
Malone D, Newron-Howes G, Simmonds S, et al: Community mental health teams (CMHTs) for people with severe mental illnesses and disordered personality. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3:CD000270, 2007
36.
Wierdsma AI, Poodt HD, Mulder CL: Effects of community-care networks on psychiatric emergency contacts, hospitalisation and involuntary admission. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61:613–618, 2007
37.
Nesper AC, Morris BA, Scher LM, et al: Effect of decreasing county mental health services on the emergency department. Annals of Emergency Medicine 67:525–530, 2016
38.
Aagaard J, Aagaard A, Buus N: Predictors of frequent visits to a psychiatric emergency room: a large-scale register study combined with a small-scale interview study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 51:1003–1013, 2014
39.
Richard-Lepouriel H, Weber K, Baertschi M, et al: Predictors of recurrent use of psychiatric emergency services. Psychiatric Services 66:521–526, 2015
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: Michigan Summer, by Ivan Albright, no date. Watercolor and gouache on paper. Mary and Earle Ludgin Collection, 1981.1164. © The Art Institute of Chicago.
History
Received: 11 August 2016
Revision received: 30 November 2016
Accepted: 25 January 2017
Published online: 1 May 2017
Published in print: August 01, 2017
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).