Patients' readiness for deinstitutionalization: objective evaluation vs. subjective views of staff,...

1
BioMed Central Page 1 of 1 (page number not for citation purposes) Annals of General Psychiatry Open Access Poster presentation Patients' readiness for deinstitutionalization: objective evaluation vs. subjective views of staff, relatives and patients themselves George Giaglis*, Barbara Michailidou and Georgios Angelidis Address: Psychiatric Hospital of Petra Olympus, Greece * Corresponding author Background Deinstitutionalization decisions are usually influenced not only by objective evaluations but also by subjective views of the parties involved. Materials and methods Community Placement Questionnaire (CPQ) was com- pleted for 278 patients prior to the implementation of the deinstitutionalization project in the Psychiatric Hospital of Petra, Olympus, Greece. The staff's, relatives' and patients' views were also recorded. Results Considering CPQ to be the golden standard, the staff's evaluations of patients' readiness to be deinstitutionalized were more accurate [F(2,268) = 51.67, p < 0.001], while relatives had exactly opposite views [F(2,231) = 4.13, p = 0.017]. In general relatives expressed more optimistic esti- mations than patients or staff; however their enthusiasm was diminished [x2(2) = 8.86, p = 0.012], if the patients had already tried and failed to live outside the institution. Patients who were confined by court order felt less ready to go out than patients who were voluntarily committed [x2(6) = 16.43, p = 0.012]. Finally, when staff suggested the restrictiveness of a structure, they took more in account their own evaluations about the patients' readi- ness, his/her age and the duration of his/her last hospital- ization, than the patients' or their relatives' views. Discussion The staff's evaluations about patients' readiness to be deinstitutionalized and their suggestions for ideal future community structures for them seem to be accurate, objective; they are not influenced by patients' or relatives' views. References 1. Clifford P, Charman A, Webb Y, Best S: Planning for Community Care. Long-Stay Populations of Hospitals Scheduled for Run- down or Closure. British Journal of Psychiatry 1991, 158:190-196. 2. Clifford P, Charma A, Webb Y, Craig TJ, Cowan D: Planning for Community Care: the Community Placement Question- naire. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 1991, 30:193-211. from International Society on Brain and Behaviour: 2nd International Congress on Brain and Behaviour Thessaloniki, Greece. 17–20 November 2005 Published: 28 February 2006 Annals of General Psychiatry 2006, 5(Suppl 1):S132 doi:10.1186/1744-859X-5-S1-S132 <supplement> <title> <p>International Society on Brain and Behaviour: 2nd International Congress on Brain and Behaviour</p> </title> <note>Meeting abstracts – A single PDF containing all abstracts in this Supplement is available <a href="http:// www.biomedcentral.com/content/files/pdf/1744-859X-5-S1-full.pdf">here</a>.</note> </supplement>

Transcript of Patients' readiness for deinstitutionalization: objective evaluation vs. subjective views of staff,...

Page 1: Patients' readiness for deinstitutionalization: objective evaluation vs. subjective views of staff, relatives and patients themselves

BioMed Central

Page 1 of 1(page number not for citation purposes)

Annals of General Psychiatry

Open AccessPoster presentationPatients' readiness for deinstitutionalization: objective evaluation vs. subjective views of staff, relatives and patients themselvesGeorge Giaglis*, Barbara Michailidou and Georgios Angelidis

Address: Psychiatric Hospital of Petra Olympus, Greece

* Corresponding author

BackgroundDeinstitutionalization decisions are usually influencednot only by objective evaluations but also by subjectiveviews of the parties involved.

Materials and methodsCommunity Placement Questionnaire (CPQ) was com-pleted for 278 patients prior to the implementation of thedeinstitutionalization project in the Psychiatric Hospitalof Petra, Olympus, Greece. The staff's, relatives' andpatients' views were also recorded.

ResultsConsidering CPQ to be the golden standard, the staff'sevaluations of patients' readiness to be deinstitutionalizedwere more accurate [F(2,268) = 51.67, p < 0.001], whilerelatives had exactly opposite views [F(2,231) = 4.13, p =0.017]. In general relatives expressed more optimistic esti-mations than patients or staff; however their enthusiasmwas diminished [x2(2) = 8.86, p = 0.012], if the patientshad already tried and failed to live outside the institution.Patients who were confined by court order felt less readyto go out than patients who were voluntarily committed[x2(6) = 16.43, p = 0.012]. Finally, when staff suggestedthe restrictiveness of a structure, they took more inaccount their own evaluations about the patients' readi-ness, his/her age and the duration of his/her last hospital-ization, than the patients' or their relatives' views.

DiscussionThe staff's evaluations about patients' readiness to bedeinstitutionalized and their suggestions for ideal futurecommunity structures for them seem to be accurate,objective; they are not influenced by patients' or relatives'views.

References1. Clifford P, Charman A, Webb Y, Best S: Planning for Community

Care. Long-Stay Populations of Hospitals Scheduled for Run-down or Closure. British Journal of Psychiatry 1991, 158:190-196.

2. Clifford P, Charma A, Webb Y, Craig TJ, Cowan D: Planning forCommunity Care: the Community Placement Question-naire. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 1991, 30:193-211.

from International Society on Brain and Behaviour: 2nd International Congress on Brain and BehaviourThessaloniki, Greece. 17–20 November 2005

Published: 28 February 2006

Annals of General Psychiatry 2006, 5(Suppl 1):S132 doi:10.1186/1744-859X-5-S1-S132<supplement> <title> <p>International Society on Brain and Behaviour: 2nd International Congress on Brain and Behaviour</p> </title> <note>Meeting abstracts – A single PDF containing all abstracts in this Supplement is available <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/files/pdf/1744-859X-5-S1-full.pdf">here</a>.</note> </supplement>