Psychosomatics最新文献

Background

Proactive consultation-liaison psychiatry improves identification of psychiatric needs and reduces time to psychiatric consultation and length of stay (LOS) among medical inpatients in academic clinical settings.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of a proactive model on LOS, consult rate, and consultation latency in a nonacademic community hospital.

Methods

We implemented a modified proactive consultation-liaison service (PCS) in a 32-bed acute care medical-surgical unit in a community hospital. We compared outcomes during a 90-day PCS intervention period to preintervention and postintervention cohorts receiving consultation-as-usual in the same unit. During the intervention, a psychiatrist reviewed the electronic medical record of patients admitted to the study unit to guide recommendations and collaborated with existing unit staff. Primary outcomes were LOS, consultation rate, and consultation latency. Secondary outcomes included restraint utilization, 1:1 companion utilization, and a survey completed by unit nursing staff.

Results

Half of patients on the study unit had psychiatric comorbidity. Median LOS in the PCS cohort was 3.0 days versus 5.0 days in the preintervention and postintervention cohorts. The consultation rate was higher in the PCS cohort (1.4% before intervention; 33% intervention; 6.5% after intervention), and median consultation latency was also reduced during the intervention (57.6 h before intervention; 19.2 h intervention; 48 h after intervention).

Conclusions

Implementation of a modified PCS model is feasible in a community hospital setting and can reduce LOS, enhance psychiatric service utilization, and reduce consultation latency. This study demonstrates that proactive consultation-liaison may offer the same benefits to nonacademic community hospitals as it does to large academic centers.

Background: Coronovirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) first broke out in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in 2019, and now it spreads in more than 100 countries around the world. On January 30th, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a public health emergency of international concern. It was classified as a pandemic by the WHO on March 11, 2020. With the increase in the number of cases reported by various countries every day, the COVID-19 pandemic has attracted more and more attention around the world. At the same time, this public health emergency has caused a variety of psychological problems, such as panic disorder, anxiety, and depression. In addition, the Wuhan Mental Health Center's analysis of 2144 calls from the psychological hotline from February 4 to February 20, 2020, showed that the general public accounted for 70%, medical workers accounted for 2.2%, patients with mental disorders accounted for 19.5%, and other personnel accounted for 8.3% (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/kmff1vnaLsT2d9xQkK5pwg). Conclusion: Therefore, while controlling the pandemic, the government should also pay attention to the mental health of the general public, medical workers, and patients with mental disorders. Community mental health service systems, online mental health services, telemedicine, and other measures for patients with mental disorders may play a vital role during the pandemic.

Background

Infections related to intravenous drug use and opioid use disorders (OUDs) are increasing nationwide. Endocarditis is a recognized complication of intravenous drug use, and inpatient treatment typically focuses on infection management without attention to underlying addiction.

Objective

A comprehensive intervention for inpatients with infective endocarditis and intravenous drug use was implemented by a multidisciplinary team at a large midwestern hospital. The team included behavioral health/addiction medicine, infectious disease, pain medicine, cardiothoracic surgery, pharmacy, and nursing to address the OUD while managing the infection. The intervention was assessed by measuring the initiation of medication-assisted treatment and endocarditis-related readmissions.

Methods

Patients were identified from the medical records using discharge diagnosis codes for OUDs and infective endocarditis. In addition to medical management of infective endocarditis, the multidisciplinary intervention included early involvement of addiction medicine and the pain management at the time of admission. Patient interventions included education, motivational interviewing, behavioral health engagement, collaborative pain management, individual/family therapy, medication evaluation, and initiation of medication-assisted treatment. Caregivers were also educated on OUDs and ways to support patients undergoing interventions.

Results

Both the historical control group (N = 37) and the intervention group (N = 33) were comparable in age, gender, race, marital status, psychiatric history, and smoking but differed by employment status, religious affiliation, and use of psychiatric medications. At discharge, 18.9% of the control group and 54.5% in the intervention group were initiated on medication-assisted treatment for OUDs. No differences in readmission rates were found.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary teams for treating inpatients with intravenous drug use and infective endocarditis are feasible and can increase the uptake of OUD-specific treatment.

Background

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are among several experimental treatments being investigated in the urgent response to the coronavirus disease-2019. With increased use of these medications, physicians need to become knowledgeable of these drugs' neuropsychiatric side effects and interactions with psychiatric medications. Objective: Clarify evidence base regarding the psychiatric side effects and psychiatric drug interactions of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine.

Methods

A literature review was performed in PubMed from 1950 to 2020 regarding psychiatric topics and targeted pharmacological properties of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine.

Results

First, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may mildly inhibit CYP2D6 metabolism of psychiatric medications, and psychiatric medications that interfere with CYP2D6 or CYP3A4 activity could alter chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine levels. Second, they may prolong the QT interval, warranting caution with concomitant prescription of other QT prolonging agents. Finally, neuropsychiatric side effects are very uncommon but possible and include a potentially prolonged phenomenon of “psychosis after chloroquine.” Hydroxychloroquine has less information available about its neuropsychiatric side effects than chloroquine, with psychosis literature limited to several case reports. Weak evidence suggests a possible association of hydroxychloroquine exposure and increased suicidal ideation. It is not clear whether patients with psychiatric illness are more vulnerable to neuropsychiatric sequela of these medications; however, overdose of these medications by suicidal patients has high risk of mortality.

Conclusion

The risk of neuropsychiatric side effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine when used for coronavirus disease-2019 treatment is not known. Best practice may include suicide risk assessment for patients treated with hydroxychloroquine. However, delirium is expected to be a more likely etiology of neuropsychiatric symptoms in critically ill patients treated for coronavirus disease-2019, and adjustment disorder is a much more likely etiology of anxiety and depression symptoms than the side effects of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine.