No abstract

BackgroundThe Israel Mental Health Act of 1991 stipulates a process for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization (IPH). A patient thus hospitalized may be discharged by either the treating psychiatrist (TP) or the district psychiatric committee (DPC). The decision rendered by the DPC is often at odds with the recommendation of the TP. Although much has been written about the ethical issues of restricting patients’ rights and limiting their freedom, far less attention has been devoted to the psychiatric, medical, and social outcome of legal patient discharge against the doctor’s recommendation.MethodsIn our study we examined the outcomes of the decisions made by the DPC using readmission data, an internationally recognized indicator of the quality of hospital care, and compared them to the outcomes of patients discharged by the TP. All IPH discharges resulting from the DPC’s determination for the year 2013 (N = 972) were extracted from the Israel national register. We also collected all IPH discharges owing to the TP’s decision for 2013 (N = 5788). We defined “failure” as readmission in less than 30 days, involuntary civil readmission in less than 180 days, and involuntary readmission under court order in less than 1 year.ResultsThe rehospitalization pattern was compared in the two groups of patients discharged from their psychiatric hospitalization during 2013 (index discharges) and followed up individually for a year.We found a statistically significant difference between the DPC and the TP group for each of the time frames, with the DPC group returning to IPH much more frequently than the TP group.Using cross-sectional comparison with logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, diagnosis and length of hospitalization, we found the probability of a decision failure in the TP group was significantly less with an OR of 0.7 (95% CI .586–.863), representing a 30% adjusted decrease in the probability for failure in the TP group.ConclusionsThe results we present show that the probability of decision “failure” (readmission) was found to be significantly higher in the DPC group than in the TP group. It is often assumed that IPH patients will fare better at home in their communities than in a protracted hospitalization. This is frequently the rationale for early discharge by the DPC (30.1 days vs. 75.9 DPC and TP groups, respectively). Our results demonstrate that this rationale may well be a faulty generalization.

The British Mandate in Palestine ended abruptly in 1948. The British departure engendered a complex situation which affected all areas of life, and the country’s health system was no exception. Gradual transition of the infrastructure was almost impossible owing to the ineffectiveness of the committee appointed by the United Nations. The situation was further complicated by the outbreak of the Arab–Israeli War. We relate for the first time the story of 75 Jewish patients who were left in a former British mental hospital in Bethlehem – deep behind the front lines. Despite the hostilities, there were complex negotiations about relocating those patients. This episode sheds light on the Jewish and Arab relationship as it pertained to mental institutions during and immediately after the British Mandate.

Background The Israel Mental Health Act of 1991 stipulates a process for court-ordered involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. As in many Western countries, this process is initiated when an individual is deemed “not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCR-MD)” or “incompetent to stand trial (IST).” A patient thus hospitalized may be discharged by the district psychiatric committee (DPC). The decision rendered by the DPC is guided by an amendment to the Mental Health Act that states that the length of the hospitalization should be in accordance with the maximum time of incarceration associated with the alleged crime. Little empirical research has been devoted to the psychiatric, medical, and social outcome of short versus long-term hospitalization under court order. Methods In our study we examined the outcomes of court-ordered criminal commitments over a 10-year period (2005–2015) at the Jerusalem Mental Health Center with a catchment area of 1.5 million. We found 136 cases (between the ages of 18 and 60) of criminal commitments during that period and used the average length of hospitalization, 205 days, as a cutoff point between short and long stays. We compared the outcomes of short and long hospitalizations of discharged patients using a follow-up phone survey (at least 7 years post-discharge) and data extracted from the Israel National Register to include recidivism, patient satisfaction and trust in the system, readmission, and demise. Results We found no statistically significant difference between short-term and long-term hospitalizations for reducing instances of re-hospitalization (p = 0.889) and recidivism (p = 0.54), although there was a slight trend toward short-term hospitalization vis-à-vis reduced recidivism. We did not find a statistical difference in mortality or incidents of suicide between the two groups, but the absolute numbers are higher than expected in both of them. Moreover, our survey showed that short-term hospitalization inspired more trust in the legal process (conduct of the DPC), in pharmacological treatment satisfaction, and in understanding the NCR-MD as a step toward avoiding future hospitalization and that it resulted in a higher level of patient satisfaction. Conclusions The results we present show that as far as recidivism and readmission are concerned, there is no evidence to suggest that there is an advantage to long-term hospitalization. Although there may be unmeasured variables not investigated in the present study that might have contributed to the discrepancy between long- and short-term hospitalization, we believe that longer hospitalizations may not serve the intended treatment purpose. Additionally, the high cost of long-term hospitalization and overcrowded wards are obviously major practical drawbacks. The impact of the clinical outcomes should be reflected in medico-legal legislation and in court-ordered hospitalization in particular.