{"title":"Assessing the prevalence of personality pathology in Australian psychiatric emergency care centres: A feasibility study.","authors":"Yvonne Nguyen, Nick Glozier, Jacqueline Huber","doi":"10.1177/10398562241308711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess feasibility and acceptability of self-report measures in estimating prevalence of measurable personality disorder (PD) pathology in a Psychiatric Emergency Care Centre (PECC) unit.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Patients meeting eligibility criteria admitted to an inner-city PECC unit were invited to complete the (1) Standardised Assessment of Personality - Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS), (2) Personality Inventory of DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF), and (3) Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF-2.0).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 24 participants - 80% of invited patients but only 51% of eligible patients and 21% of total PECC inpatients. Barriers to recruitment included: not meeting eligibility criteria, rapid discharge, and high workload. All participants completed the self-report measures. There was a very high prevalence of likely PD (87.5%) (SAPAS), personality trait dysfunction (87.5%) (PID-5-BF) and impaired personality functioning (91.7%) (LPFS-BF 2.0) but there was a low rate of agreement between discharge summary diagnoses and self-report measures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using self-report measures to assess PD pathology in a PECC unit was acceptable and may improve discharge summary diagnosis accuracy. Logistical challenges may limit this approach unless it can be embedded in routine care measures. Having accurate prevalence estimates would enable appropriate research, treatment and resourcing in PECCs.</p>","PeriodicalId":8630,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"10398562241308711"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562241308711","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To assess feasibility and acceptability of self-report measures in estimating prevalence of measurable personality disorder (PD) pathology in a Psychiatric Emergency Care Centre (PECC) unit.
Method: Patients meeting eligibility criteria admitted to an inner-city PECC unit were invited to complete the (1) Standardised Assessment of Personality - Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS), (2) Personality Inventory of DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF), and (3) Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF-2.0).
Results: There were 24 participants - 80% of invited patients but only 51% of eligible patients and 21% of total PECC inpatients. Barriers to recruitment included: not meeting eligibility criteria, rapid discharge, and high workload. All participants completed the self-report measures. There was a very high prevalence of likely PD (87.5%) (SAPAS), personality trait dysfunction (87.5%) (PID-5-BF) and impaired personality functioning (91.7%) (LPFS-BF 2.0) but there was a low rate of agreement between discharge summary diagnoses and self-report measures.
Conclusions: Using self-report measures to assess PD pathology in a PECC unit was acceptable and may improve discharge summary diagnosis accuracy. Logistical challenges may limit this approach unless it can be embedded in routine care measures. Having accurate prevalence estimates would enable appropriate research, treatment and resourcing in PECCs.
期刊介绍:
Australasian Psychiatry is the bi-monthly journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) that aims to promote the art of psychiatry and its maintenance of excellence in practice. The journal is peer-reviewed and accepts submissions, presented as original research; reviews; descriptions of innovative services; comments on policy, history, politics, economics, training, ethics and the Arts as they relate to mental health and mental health services; statements of opinion and letters. Book reviews are commissioned by the editor. A section of the journal provides information on RANZCP business and related matters.