| Literature DB >> 36032259 |
Hiroko Kashiwagi1, Kayo Kume1, Koji Takeda1, Taiki Ueshima1, Osamu Asaumi1, Mayu Omori1, Naotsugu Hirabayashi1.
Abstract
The global impact of COVID-19 outbreak on psychiatric hospitals and prisons is unfathomable and unprecedented, and information is needed on how best to mitigate widespread infection whilst safeguarding the community's well-being. This study reports on how the staff and patients in a forensic psychiatric ward in Japan worked together during the COVID-19 outbreak as a "therapeutic community." The "Non-Three Cs" Karaoke Project, with infection prevention guidelines designed by inpatients, was safely conducted and its humor released the staff and patients' anxiety and tension. Through these discussions, the patients and staff gained a better understanding of viruses, transmission routes, countermeasures, and coping with stress. The study highlights the importance of disclosing information to inpatients, conducting open discussions, and involving patients in the prevention and management of infectious diseases. This report is the world's first report showing a concrete example of the therapeutic community's significance during the COVID-19 outbreak. It is an experience that offers an opportunity to reconsider the significance of the therapeutic community, in which patients are seen as a presence that brings change, strength, growth, and creativity into the therapeutic setting. We believe that such an approach in a future disaster would lead to an increase in the patients' problem-solving ability, and recovery and autonomy after discharge could be promoted. A shared difficult situation can be an opportunity to build a therapeutic alliance and make a difference.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Japan; MTSA; disaster; forensic psychiatry; therapeutic community
Year: 2022 PMID: 36032259 PMCID: PMC9399495 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.577969
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 5.435
Change of Scale on the ICF functioning.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||
| Self-care | Ensuring one's physical comfort | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Managing diet and fitness | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Maintaining one's health | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Preparing meals | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Doing housework | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| Basic interpersonal interactions | Respect and warmth | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Appreciation | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Tolerance | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Criticism | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| Social cues | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| Physical contact | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Complex interpersonal interactions | Forming relationships | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Terminating relationships | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Regulating behaviors within interactions | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| Interacting according to social rules | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| Maintaining social space | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Carrying out a daily routine | Managing a daily routine | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Completing a daily routine | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Managing one's own activity level | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Handling stress and other | Handling responsibilities | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| psychological demands | Handling stress | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Handling crisis | 3 | 8 | 8 | |
| Economic life | Basic economic transactions | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Complex economic transactions | 3 | 3 | 2 | |
| Economic self-sufficiency | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
The following scores are used to evaluate the execution of the current life situation.
Scale: 0: “Fully capable (0–4% disability, independent)” 1: “Generally able (5–24% impairment, requiring supervision)” 2: “Somewhat able (25–49% disability, sometimes requiring instruction, assistance, or intervention)” 3: “Can hardly do it (50–95% disability, often requiring instruction, assistance, or intervention)” 4: “Cannot do it at all (96–100% disability, needs constant assistance)” 8: “Not specified” 9: “Not applicable”.
ICF, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
Change of score on the GAF.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| GAF score | 45 | 50 | 55 |
GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning.
Change of Scale on the ICF environmental factors.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||
| Products and technology | Prescription medications, personal vehicles, a home, assets, etc. | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| Natural environment and human-made changes to environment | Convenience of hospital visits, local customs, etc. | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| Support and relationships | Quantitative evaluation of human support from family members, acquaintances, medical and social workers, etc. | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| Attitudes | Qualitative assessment of the human environment, including attitudes of family and acquaintances, therapists, and the community in which they live | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| Services, systems and policies | Availability of medical welfare system, etc. | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Note the specifics of whether environmental factors are working in a facilitative or inhibitory manner. This information will be used to formulate an intervention policy.
Scale: 0: “Facilitating” 1: “Somewhat facilitating” 2: “Neither” 3: “Somewhat inhibiting” 4: “Inhibiting.”
ICF, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.