Call the Police

What should you do if you believe someone is dangerous?  It's a sticky issue in psychiatry.  Here in Maryland, the requirements to have someone brought to an emergency room for evaluation by two physicians, include an imminent risk of dangerousness and the presence of a mental disorder.   If an emergency petition is signed by a judge, the police pick up the person in question and bring him to an emergency room for an evaluation.  In the ER, doctors can decide to certify the patient to an inpatient unit for further evaluation, or they can release the patient.  If admitted, a hearing must be held within 10 days.

Who else can file a EP?  Well, the police can.  If someone acutely agitated and violent and there is no time for a family member or interested party to obtain an EP, the police can be called and they have the option to fill out an EP and take the person to the hospital without a judge okaying the EP.  Depending on the circumstances, they also they have the option to arrest the individual and bring them to jail.   Finally,  a doctor can file an EP, but s/he must have seen the patient (--you can't get tell your rheumatologist-neighbor about your ill relative and get him to file an EP). 

So the police come -- either because they've been called in an emergency, or because a judge has authorized them to take someone to the hospital.  Most of the time, this goes smoothly.  But it doesn't always, especially since the person involved is presumably mentally ill and dangerous (the criteria for getting the evaluation).  Sometimes things get very upsetting, and sometimes they go very badly and someone gets hurt. 

In today's Baltimore Sun, there is an article by Justin Fenton that questions whether our police have the proper training to handle these crisis situations:

Baltimore Police have shot 10 people this year — eight of them fatally — leading some to question whether police are properly equipped to handle calls involving the mentally ill.

Only one of those shot was carrying a firearm, and several shooting incidents arose from calls to police about a disturbance involving someone with a mental illness. Relatives of some of those killed criticized police tactics, saying they shouldn't have lost loved ones after calling police to defuse situations that had ended peacefully in the past.

These are difficult situations, sometimes with no answer that will lead to a good outcome.   Fenton continues:

The director of the city's mental health organization praised the Police Department's training effort and said services for the mentally ill are lacking.

"If we don't do a good job getting people into treatment and something bad happens, we look to the Police Department and ask why did this person get shot," said Jane Plapinger, the president and chief executive officer of Baltimore Mental Health Systems. "Maryland is one of the best, but we unfortunately have an underfunded public mental health system everywhere in this country."

The Behavioral Emergency Services Team, or B.E.S.T. training, was implemented in 2009 and teaches officers to de-escalate mental crises, minimize arrests, decrease officer injury and direct patients to the city's mental health crisis programs for help. It has become mandatory for recruits.

"The police have been such a steadfast partner — I don't know how many [other] police departments are devoting four full days to this kind of training," Plapinger said.

The patients aren't the only ones in danger.  Police officers, or others, can be injured in these struggles. While it's not like there is an obvious answer besides calling the police, if the situation does not involve immediate danger, I often suggest that family member work to de-escalate upsetting situations and  convince a patient to go for help voluntarily, or with coercion, because even if it's coerced, these situations are often less upsetting for the patient and less dangerous for everyone if they can be done without the police.  Of course, this involves 20-20 hindsight, and the use of a crystal ball, because if there is a bad outcome and someone is injured or killed, then calling the police would have been a better solution.

I do wish I had that crystal ball. 

A Cry for Help

When Roy and I were on Talk of the Nation this past week, a called phoned in to ask about her sister. The question was about care in the Emergency Room/Department, so it was a perfect Roy question and he fielded it. I've been playing with it since, and wanted to talk more about this particular scenario, because the scenario was very common, and the question was more complicated than it seems.

From the transcript of the show:

ANN (Caller): Hi, thank you very much. I would like to ask Dr. Roy (oh, I gave him his blog name here) a question: My sister was admitted to emergency when she cut her wrists, and the doctor on call pulled me aside and said, do you think she was trying to kill herself?

And I said - because my sister is very intelligent - I said, if my sister really wanted to kill herself, she would have done it. I think she's asking for help.

And so he said - and so he had her see the healthy who was on call, or on duty. And she spoke with him for a while. And he sent her home, saying: Well, if you need me, I'm here.

What I would like to ask Dr. Roy is, what protocol was going on there? Why did they allow that to happen? And what would you change, if you could?

----
Roy did a great job touching on issues of voluntary versus involuntary hospitalization and the importance of hooking someone who is looking for help in to outpatient care.

If this were more of a two-way conversation, I'd want to ask more questions. What did the caller think should have happened? Was the sister given a referral for outpatient care? Was she asked if she wanted one? Was she already in treatment? My sense --and I could easily be wrong-- was that the caller thought the patient should be admitted to the hospital. She was desperate and ready now for help. The doctor asked the sister if she thought the patient wanted to commit suicide; hopefully the patient was asked that as well.

So if the caller thought her sister should have been hospitalized, there are things about the 'system' she isn't aware of. Hospital inpatient units are a place that people go to be kept safe. In many ways, they are a holding place and the goals there do not include treatment back to wellness, but treatment back to safety. It's a very low bar, and it ends up that only those who are imminently dangerous, or so disorganized as to be at risk, get admitted from an ER. There are some exceptions: if the ER doc doesn't believe a patient who says he's not suicidal/homicidal, he may err on the side of safety and admit the patient, or if the patient's behavior seems unpredictable, he may get admitted. At a community hospital, a typical length of stay is only a few days, very little actual psychotherapy occurs in the hospital, and while medications may be started, people are generally discharged before those medications can take effect or even be brought to steady-state levels. Gone are the days of long-term hospitalizations. And because of the acuity of illness in those people who are admitted to the hospital, psychiatric inpatient units are often not very restful places. If you want peace and quiet, you're better off in a hotel where you can order room service, have a massage, sleep peacefully, and it costs a whole lot less.

Sometimes people are admitted to specialty units where more intensive treatment does take place which may take longer and may have a goal that goes beyond imminent safety. There are special mood disorder units, eating disorder services, pain units, trauma disorder services, or inpatient stays for ECT...but one doesn't typically get admitted to these from the Emergency Room and often issues of payment limit who can be admitted and for how long. Of course, there is Clink's favorite place, The Retreat, where you can get help in a very pleasant environment, and I imagine they would be happy to have the sister of the caller from the radio, but that is self-pay.

"Getting help" usually means going to an outpatient therapist/healthy and it's not something that necessarily gets started while the moment is ripe. If there is a clinic associated with the hospital, they may have emergency slots for the ER to offer fast appointments, but other times, it can take many weeks to get a first appointment. Private practice varies a good deal-- I know shrinks who can get you in within the week, and others with a 6 week wait, and many who are simply too booked to take new patients.

I didn't write these rules, I'm just letting you know what they are. How do you think it should all work?

Doctors to Go to Jail for Asking Patients About Guns in the Home

Imagine the scenario where you are an ER physician, nurse, or social worker and a person is brought to the hospital by the police for making a suicidal threat.

"I want to die. My wife left me and our house is in foreclosure."--"Do you have any plans to harm yourself?""My dad shot himself when I was little. That's how I would do it."--"Do you have any firearms at home?""OFFICER! Can you arrest this social worker? He just asked me if I have guns at home."[officer]: "Come with me sir. You have the right to remain silent..."

This is the scenario that could actually happen if Senate Bill 432 passes in Florida. The bill makes it a felony to inquire about firearms access or to include any information about firearms access in the medical record, punishable by up to 5 years in jail and/or a $5 million fine. Excuse my French, but WTF?!

An article in the Psychiatric News by Bob Guldin explains that the bill was introduced in both the House and Senate at the suggestion of the National Rifle Association (NRA) to prevent intrusion into the constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

It has been shown that removal of firearms from the home reduces the risk of a completed suicide. So you'd think such a bill would get laughed out of the legislature? Florida child healthy and APA Assembly recorder said, "This bill is not a stunt... the financial power of the NRA in Florida will make it very difficult for sensible legislators to vote against this bill."

I note that a second version of the bill has been proposed, one that reduces the fine to a minimum of $10,000 for the first offense and a minimum of $100,000 for the third offense. It also reduces the offense from a felony to a "noncriminal violation" and compels the states attorney to pursue a possible violation or face professional misconduct charges. This version does permit certain health care providers to ask the question only in certain specific situations (e.g., an emergency "mental health or psychotic episode") but cannot tell anyone else other than the police. Apparently, a similar bill passed one house in Virginia five years ago before dying.

Next will be a bill that outlaws common sense.

********************

Clink comments: We've talked about issues related to guns before here, in Dinah's post "Guns and the Mentally Ill" and again when I mentioned a poster session that talked about gun ownership laws nationally. At my last American Academy of Psychiatry and Law conference I mentioned that 27 states have statutes with lifetime restrictions on gun ownership for people with mental illness. Other states have time limited restrictions on ownership, and some allow restoration of full rights contingent on a physician's documentation of recovery.

So now we have a dilemma: in states where you need a physician's certificate to buy a gun, how can that same physician then be banned from asking about ownership?? I can imagine the session in which a patient comes in to be "cleared" to buy a weapon.

MD: "Well, you're taking your medicine and your symptoms are all under control. You tell me you're feeling well and you'd like to buy that awesome weapon you've been dreaming about."

Gun buyer: "Yeah! I've done the research and I know exactly what I want."

MD: "I need to know whether you have cognitive skills and emotional stability to handle a responsibility like that. Tell me, have you ever owned a gun before?"

Gun buyer: "Awesome!! Now I can sue you for infliction of emotional distress for violating my Second Amendment rights. Those triple damages will really help me stock up my arsenal."

Bottom line: The NRA can't have it both ways. If they involve healthys in restoration of gun rights, they can't ban them for asking questions about ownership.