Dataset Information

Self-admission in the treatment of eating disorders: an analysis of healthcare resource reallocation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Self-admission to psychiatric inpatient treatment is an innovative approach to healthcare rationing, based on reallocation of existing resources rather than on increased funding. In self-admission, patients with a history of high healthcare utilization are invited to decide for themselves when brief admission is warranted. Previous findings on patients with severe eating disorders indicate that self-admission reduces participants' need for inpatient treatment, but that it does not alone lead to symptom remission.

Methods

The aim of this study was to evaluate if, from a service provider perspective, the resource reallocation associated with self-admission is justified. The analysis makes use of data from a cohort study evaluating the one-year outcomes of self-admission at the Stockholm Centre for Eating Disorders.

Results

Participants in the program reduced their need for regular specialist inpatient treatment by 67%. Thereby, hospital beds were made available for non-participants due to the removal of a yearly average of 13.2 high-utilizers from the regular waiting list. A sensitivity analysis showed that this "win-win situation" occurred within the entire 95% confidence interval of the inpatient treatment utilization reduction.

Conclusions

For healthcare systems relying on rationing by waiting list, self-admission has the potential to reduce the need for hospitalization for patients with longstanding eating disorders, while also offering benefits in the form of increased available resources for other patients requiring hospitalization.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02937259 (retrospectively registered 10/15/2016).

SUBMITTER: Strand M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8130160 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeDue to COVID-19 pandemic, the Italian population lived in quarantine from March to May 2020 (lockdown phase I). Restrictions impacted individuals' psychological health, especially in those with eating disorders (ED). Healthcare providers (HCPs) treating ED provided assistance by telemedicine and/or in walk-in clinics. We hypothesize that social restrictions represented a great stressor for ED patients and HCPs, negatively impacted their therapeutic alliance, and affected the frequency of dysfunctional behaviors.MethodsThis cross-sectional study consisted of an online survey investigating the experience of HCPs involved in ED treatment, with a specific focus on difficulties concerning the therapeutic efficacy. Questionnaire (n. 18 questions) was formulated ad hoc by our research team and sent by e-mail to Italian HCPs registered on online platforms. HCPs included ED experts specialized in psychology, nutrition or medicine. Data were collected during lockdown phase I and referred to patients with Anorexia Nervosa-(AN), Bulimia Nervosa (BN)-and Binge-Eating Disorder-(BED).ResultsOne-hundred questionnaires were collected; 84 and 76 were included in our qualitative and quantitative analyses, respectively. Thirty-six% of HCPs felt their therapeutic intervention was unsuccessful, 37% complained compromised therapeutic alliance. Changes in frequency of compensatory behaviors (increased in 41% AN and 49,5% BN; reduced in 14,6% AN and 21,8% BN) and binge-eating episodes (increased in 53,3% BN and 30,5% BED; reduced in 30,7% BN and 24,7% BED) were experienced and ascribed to augmented patient's anxiety. Disorders switches and variation in dysfunctional conducts frequency were both significantly related to ED category (p < 0.05 for all). Concentration techniques were recognized as useful to offset such negative outcomes.ConclusionAccording to HCPs, social restrictions affected the frequency of dysfunctional behaviors in ED patients and the efficacy of their therapeutic intervention. Further long-term studies are needed to confirm our data in a larger sample size.Level ivNovel results from a cross-sectional study.