Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:07:33.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Has the attempt to reduce psychiatric inpatient treatment been successful in Finland?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

R. Kaltiala-Heino ,
P. Laippala  and
M. Joukamaa
R. Kaltiala-Heino*
Affiliation:
Tampere School of Public Health, 33014 University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland;
P. Laippala
Affiliation:
Tampere School of Public Health, 33014 University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland;
M. Joukamaa
Affiliation:
Oulu University Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, Oulu, Finland
*
*Correspondence and reprints. E-mail address: merihe@uta.fi (R. Kaltiala-Heino).
Get access

Summary

The deinstitutionalisation process in Finland’s psychiatric healthcare did not start until the late 1980s. Our aim is to evaluate how the use of psychiatric inpatient treatment was associated with deinstitutionalisation given the changes in the modality of treatment ideology (years 1987–1991) as well as being due to economic pressures (years 1991–1995). Special emphasis is given on the inpatient treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

Data was retrieved using the national hospital discharge register of all treatment periods in psychiatric hospitals and treatment periods due to psychiatric disorders in other hospitals. Three years (1987, 1991, and 1995) were compared. Four healthcare districts in northern Finland were studied. Resource use was measured by number of treatment periods and inpatient days in relation to population. Psychiatric inpatient treatment was reduced in 1987–1991, when resources in community care increased. During the period of economic pressures (1991–1995), when community care resources no longer increased, inpatient treatment started to rise again. Over the whole period, psychiatric treatment in primary care institutions increased.

Reduction of psychiatric beds results in increasing inpatient treatment in non-specialist institutions, especially when community care fails to serve the patients. In the future it is important to evaluate whether the quality of care remains in the standard of specialised services when treatment shifts away from the specialist level.

Keywords

deinstitutionalisationepidemiologic studymental health servicesregister studyutilisation of beds
Type
Original article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , June 2001 , pp. 215 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appelby, L., Desai, P.N., Luchin, D.J., Gibbons, R.D., Hedeker, D.R.Length of stay and recidivism in schizophrenia: a study of public psychiatric hospital patients. Am J Psychiatry 1993; 150: 72–76.Google Scholar
Dencker, S., Dencker, K.Does community care reduce the need for psychiatric beds for schizophrenic patients?. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1994; 382: (Suppl): 74–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Salvia, D., Barbato, A.Recent trends in mental health services in Italy: an analysis of national and local data. Can J Psychiatry 1993; 38: 195–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fioritti, A., Lo Russo, L., Melega, V.Reform said or done? The case of Emilia-Romagne within the Italian psychiatric context. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154: 94–98.Google ScholarPubMed
Hansson, L.Utilization of psychiatric inpatient care. A study of changes related to the introduction of a sectorized care organization. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1989; 79: 571–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isohanni, M., Mäkikyrö, T., Moring, J., Räsänen, P., Hakko, H., Partanen, U. et al. A comparison of clinical and research DSM-III-R diagnoses of schizophrenia in a Finnish national birth cohort. Clinical and research diagnoses of schizophrenia. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 1997; 32: 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korkeila, J.Perspectives on the public psychiatric services in Finland. Staes, Research report 93. Jyväskylä: Gummerus Printing; 1998.Google Scholar
Lamb, H.Lessons learned from deinstitutionalisation in the US. Br J Psychiatry 1993; 162: 587–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamb, H., Shaner, R.When there are almost no state hospital beds left. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1993; 44: 973–976.Google ScholarPubMed
Mielenterveystyön Komiteanmietintö I-II. (Report of the Committee on Mental Health Work 1984) Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus; 1984.Google Scholar
Morosini, P., Repetto, F., De Salvia, D., Cecere, F.Psychiatric hospitalization in Italy before and after 1978. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1985; 316 (Suppl): 27–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redick, R., Witkin, M., Atay, J., Manderscheid, R.CMHS data higlights on: availability of psychiatric beds, United States, selected years,-1990. Ment Health Stat Note 1994; 213: 1–7.Google Scholar
Salokangas, R.Community care and need for treatment of schizophrenic patients in Finland. Br J Psychiatry 1994; 23 (Suppl): 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S.E., Ross, I.M.Ultra-short hospitalisations for severely mentally ill patients. Psychiatr Serv 1996; 47: 137–138.Google ScholarPubMed
Swan, J.The substitution of nursing home for inpatient psychiatric care. Community Ment Health J 1987; 23: 2–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornicroft, G., Bebbington, P.Deinstitutionalisation – from hospital closure to service development. Br J Psychiatry 1989; 155: 739–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trainor, J., Morrell-Bellai, T., Ballantyne, R., Boydell, K.Housing for people with mental illnesses: a comparison of models and an examination of the growth of alternative housing in Canada. Can J Psychiatry 1993; 38: 494–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuori, T., Lehtinen, V., Hakkarainen, A., Jääskeläinen, J., Kokkola, A., Ojanen, M. et al. The Finnish National Schizophrenia Project 1981-1987: 10-year evaluation of its results. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1998; 97: 10–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.