No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Controlled assessment of alcoholics admitted involuntarily to a general psychiatric hospital
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 June 2014
Abstract
Objective: As the provision for the involuntary admission to hospital of alcoholics is likely to be discarded in a new Irish Mental Health Act, the characteristics of patients committed under the 1945 Irish Mental Treatment Act were explored and compared with those alcoholics admitted voluntarily.
Method: All alcoholics admitted compulsorily from 1989-1992 to a general psychiatrichospital in Dublin were compared retrospectively with voluntarily admitted alcoholics. Data was taken from case notes.
Results: Results showed that patients admitted compulsorily were older (t = 3.74, df = 62, p < 0.001) and had more physical complications (X2 = 8.4, df = 1, p < 0.004) than those admitted voluntarily. Although results did not reach a statistically significant level, there were proportionately more females in the compulsorily admitted group compared with the voluntary group. The outcome of admission overall was better in those admitted voluntarily, although this was influenced both by length of stay and previous admissions for treatment of alcohol dependence. One particularly interesting finding, regardless of admission category, was that duration of admission was statistically significantly longer for women when compared with men.
Conclusions: Compulsory admission of alcoholics to a psychiatric hospital for very brief periods was not shown to be strikingly helpful, but this study cannot decide whether or not longer periods of compulsory admission would be valuable.
- Type
- Original Papers
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996
References
1.Farren, C, McLoughlin, D, Clare, AW. Procedures for involuntary admission to public and private psychiatric facilities. Ir J Psych Med 1992; 9: 96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Magee, MF. Compulsorily admission to hospital of an alcoholic patient under the Mental Health Act. J R Coll Gen Pract 1989; 39: 301.Google Scholar
3.Browne, EM. English interest in the treatment of alcoholism in the United States during the early 1870s. Br J Addiction 1986; 81: 545–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Ditman, KS, Crawford, GG, Forgie, EW, Moskowitz, H, McAndrew, C. A controlled experiment on the use of court probation for drunk arrest. Am J Psych 1967; 124, 2: 160–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Gallant, DM, Faulkner, M, Stoye, B, Bishop, MP, Langden, D. Enforced clinic treatment of paroled criminal alcoholics. Q J Stud Alcohol 1968; 29: 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Selzer, ML. and Holloway, WH. A follow-up of alcoholics committed to a state hospital. J Stud Alcohol 1957; 18: 98–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Stockwell, T, Murphy, D, Hodgson, N. The Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire: its use, reliability and validity. Br J Addiction 1983; 78: 145–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Welte, J, Hynes, G, Sokolow, L, Lyons, JP. Effect of length of stay in in-patient alcoholism treatment on outcome. J Stud Alcohol 1981; 42, 5: 483–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Willems, PJA, Letemendia, FJJ, and Arroyave, F. A two-year follow-up study comparing short with long stay in-patient treatment of alcoholics. Br J Psych 1973; 122, 637–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed