Involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation – differences and similarities between patients detained under the mental health act and according to the legal guardianship legislation

Abstract

Abstract 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 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 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 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.

Keywords

• Mental Health Act
• Legal guardianship
• Involuntary hospitalisation
• Coercion
• Machine learning
• Random Forest