Minnesota's Abandonment Of Severely Mentally Ill - Nearly Complete

For years I have been documenting the systematic dismantling of the public mental health system in the state of Minnesota.  A chronic unanswered question is how the midwest's most liberal state has come up with such a horrible system.  The most obvious answer is that the system is being run by people who do not have a clue about the treatment of mental illnesses.  A Governor's Task Force, convened a year ago has not put a dent into the further systematic deterioration.  This 30 year race to the bottom in terms of deterioration is why I was not surprised at all by the latest piece of bad news.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune published a story three days ago that St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Brainerd Minnesota stopped accepting patients who were being treated on an involuntary basis under civil commitment.  They cite an increased length of stay and safety issues. Both of these are valid concerns with people committed for treatment of a mental illness.  The system of hospital reimbursement put in place in the 1980s encourages rationing and absurdly short length of stays in inpatient psychiatric units.  People who have undergone civil commitment generally have more difficult to stabilize mental illnesses compounded by a lack of recognition that they have a problem.  Some of them are also violent and aggressive and those behaviors are directly attributable to the mental illness.  The article refers to an incident where one of these patients threw a wooden chair at a nurse and the next day six voluntary patients requested discharge.  This is a relatively mild incident compared to what is possible in acute inpatient settings trying to care for people with the most severe forms of mental illness.  The most important aspect of treating violent and aggressive patients is having an environment of highly trained people to work with them.

The reality of the situation is reflected by the balance of both acute care and public psychiatric hospital beds.  There are 145 hospitals in the state of Minnesota and 125 have 24 hour emergency departments. Thirty two of these hospitals have psychiatric units.  These community hospitals have a total of  1,124 inpatient mental health beds statewide. Nine hundred sixty of these beds are for adults, and 164 for children and adolescents.  On the public side, there are 194 public beds for patients with severe mental illnesses who are committed.  Only committed patients can be admitted to these beds.  According to the Treatment Advocacy Center states need about 50 beds for 100,000 people.  Minnesota has 3.5 per 100,000 public beds and 22.8 per 100,000 beds in community hospitals.  Notice that in a comparison to psychiatric beds in OECD nations, the national average in the US is 22 beds per 100,000.  The United States ranks 29 out of 34 countries ranked in terms of fewest psychiatric beds.  Beds in public hospitals are not equivalent to beds in community hospitals and the newspaper report highlights the differences.  Like most states Minnesota continues to lose beds largely because of mismanagement at the level of state government and what has been an implicit initiative to shut down the state hospitals system.

The bed situation is compounded by a number of factors besides the lack of beds.  There is inadequate housing for people disabled by severe mental illness and inadequate resources to help them live independently.  The average person is expected to come in and see a psychiatrist for a discussion of medication and whether or not their acute symptoms are in remission.  Treatment for combined severe mental illness and substance use disorders is practically non-existent.  The inpatient crisis got worse when legislators passed a very poorly thought out law allowing incarcerated mentally ill patients to be transferred to remaining state hospital beds as a priority over committed patients waiting for transfer in community hospitals. This was an initiative to correct the statistic that Minnesota incarcerates 1.2 people with severe mental illness for every 1 person that it hospitalizes. 

All of the usual commentators are appear in the article - the Commissioner of Human Services and an advocate.  The reader is told that everyone is troubled by this development and wringing their hands.      

Well I'm not.  The entire sequence of events has been observable and is totally predictable.

This is a system that has been severely rationed nearly to the point of near extinction by Minnesota lawmakers and bureaucrats.  It has been interfered with by advocates and in some cases by very bad hiring decisions of people who were supposed to correct the problem.  The only thing we have to show for 30 years of hand-wringing is a a non-existent system of care that does not start to pull resources together until after a person has gone through a civil commitment hearing.  Psychiatrists have been marginalized in the process in favor of administrators who come up with one bad idea after the next.  Managed care systems seem to only recognize dangerousness as an admission criteria to inpatient psychiatric units.  The impact of that bias on commitment frequency, damage to the physician-patient alliance, and damage to the inpatient milieu is probably significant but nobody is interested in studying it.

From the article, the problem is clearly solvable.  There are an estimated 4,000 patients a year who need these services and only 194 beds available to them.  They cannot be humanely treated in community hospital acute care units.  They can also not be humanely treated in group homes designed to be surrogate state hospital beds.  They receive the least humane treatment in jail. The solution is not to blame community hospitals who cannot treat the problem.  One of the issues not mentioned in the article is that the state hospitals have been so decimated - they also cannot treat the problem.  There are probably three community hospitals in Minnesota who have adequate staffing and professional resources to address this problem.  It is conceivable that many more of the remaining 28 community hospitals with psychiatric units will adopt similar policies if they can.  The administrative measure of saying that they can't do this is really not a solution because they really can't provide the necessary care.  The state should know this from their failed initiative to provide smaller local units for committed patients.  That initiative failed for the same reason that St. Joseph's Medical Center no longer accepts committed patients.  They cannot provide adequate care for severe mental illnesses especially when aggression and violence is involved. 

I have posted the solutions in the past and they are obvious. Today I just have three:

1.  Build facilities necessary for the humane treatment of people with severe mental illnesses. Staff these facilities adequately and develop continuity of care with local facilities  when patients are ready to be discharged.  Build these facilities as state-of-the-art facilities in metropolitan areas and not rural areas.  The time is past when people were sent away to the country with mental illness.  Modern mental hospitals need easy access to advanced diagnostic and treatment equipment as well as expertise that is only concentrated in large cities.

2.  Immediately stop arbitrary transfers from county jails to state hospitals, unless the incarcerated patients have been assessed by psychiatrists who agree that a state hospital setting is the best place for them to be. 

3.  Get out of the way of the people who were trained to work there and run them - psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, and social workers.     


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



References:

1:  Chris Serres. Brainerd hospital stops admitting patients with severe mental illnesses, citing state bottlenecks: Brainerd decision alarms officials, mental health advocates.  StarTribune November 1, 2017.

Supplementary 1: The image used for this post is of Dexter Asylum attributed to Lawrence E. Tilley [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons. The original image was Photoshopped with a graphic pen filter.

The CMS Investigation Of Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center

In a previous post I discussed a recent local news article that pointed out the increase in incidents of aggression at one of the state's major psychiatric facilities and a threatened loss of Medicare funding unless certain deficiencies were corrected.  The deficiencies were determined by an investigation of the facility by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).  No specifies from the report were available from the news article or the Minnesota Department of Human Services.  They did provide me with a contact person at CMS and after another forwarded e-mail, I was sent 4 attachments detailing the results of the investigation.   I will report on those reports in this post.  The documents were all typed on a standard government form as noted in the graphic below.  The entire CMS report is written in the column labelled "Summary Statement of deficiencies...".  No comments were written in the column labelled "Provider's Plan of Correction...":

I have coded them AMRTC 1-4 for convenience and will refer to them that way in the summaries below.

AMRTC-1 is a 34 page document that states the visits was done to see if the hospital was in compliance with 42 CFR Part 482 for acute care hospitals.  The survey was conducted from 10/19 to 10/23/2015.  The report indicates that there is a 108 patient capacity at the facility and that 30 records were reviewed as the basis for the report.  Problems were found in 2/30 cases with regard to patient care.  There were additional administrative problems that also resulted in noncompliance with the federal standard.  There were problems noted  It was determined that the hospital was not in compliance with the Conditions of Participation of 42 CFR Part 482.  The main finding of the first report is that The Governing Body of the hospital failed to ensure that services provided by staff or contracted staff were proved in a safe and effective manner.  The highlighted areas include failure to assure that quality processes were in pace to minimize or prevent medical errors, failure to assure that comprehensive nursing plans were developed, and a patient's rights condition that occurred when a patient was given forced medications that were prohibited by a court order.

The Quality Assessment Performance Improvement (QAPI) programs extended across a number of clinical and nonclinical disciplines.  In some cases,  they involved the administration not doing what they stated they would do in their descriptions of quality improvement.  The best example I can think of is the reference to Six Sigma.  I have always found it a questionable practice to apply engineering management processes to any medical field.  I sat through a presentation of this paradigm in a previous job and it just seemed like the standard management buzzwords that we hear in different iterations by people who think they are inventing management every 5-10 years of so.  At that job we suffered through a couple of presentations and printed Powerpoints and it faded as soon as it came up.  We moved on to a different paradigm.  Since it was widely promoted, the Six Sigma approach has been shown to not be uniformly effective in business and manufacturing models.  What the proponents of Six Sigma to medical fields don't seem to understand is that measurement is a limiting factor and it has nowhere near the precision or accuracy of measuring products in electronics or automobiles.  At the philosophical level the administration probably made the common error of espousing a philosophy that they could not live up to.  I am not aware of any major healthcare corporation that uses the Six Sigma management model and they probably have many more resources than a state hospital. 

One of the case examples cited was an agitated patient who was physically aggressive and received olanzapine and then intramuscular haloperidol despite a court order excluding haloperidol and risperidone.  The psychiatrist and nurse involved were questioned and said they were unaware of the order at the time the medication was administered.  The patient got this medication for a period of 3 days before it was discontinued.  CMS investigators comment how the physician in this case could be held in contempt of court for ignoring a District Court judge's order.  There was a question of whether or not there were two different orders and the one barring the medications showed up later.  As a physician who has worked with different court orders in these cases for over 20 years, I can attest to the fact that they are not necessarily clear.  In many cases there is a temporary order until the final document can be typed up.  It would seem that the quality process here would be to appoint a person to make sure the latest order is in the chart and read by the attending physician before any medication orders are written.  There is also a question of how paper documents from the court are placed in an electronic record and how easily they can be read in that record.

At the end of the document problems with the care of 10 different patients with different diagnoses and problems are reviewed.   These clinical examples were given to illustrate that that patient with varied problems were all given treatment plans that were not comprehensive, even in the case of patients with aggressive or self injurious behavior.  The reports describes this as: 

"Interventions on the Patient Treatment Plan were generic and were normal functions of the professional disciplines involved in the patient's care and were not individualized to the patient."  

What does all of this mean?  A recent article in the StarTribune (1) had quotes from several mental health experts and advocates about the state of affairs at AMRTC.  The commentary seemed to vary in the level of outrage expressed as "egregious" and "appalling" and "no excuse."  As an expert - when I read the report it seems to scratch the surface.  Would correcting the deficiencies in the report right the ship out at AMRTC?  Possibly - but the previous news report suggests there is a much bigger problem.  That report was about incidents  of aggression, how they were increasing, and there was an opinion that aggressive inmates transferred based on new legislation was the main reason.  A union representative was quoted as saying that some of the inmates transferred from correctional facilities had "taken over" and that they were more aggressive than non-correctional patients.  None of those problems are specifically addressed in the report.  The report comments on problems in the care of specific individuals, only one of whom seem to be as aggressive as two of the patients mentioned in the original article (2).  The errors in the report may be largely documentation and reading errors, but administrators always emphasize "if it isn't documented it did not happen."  Some of the problems at AMRTC have been decades in the making.

For a long time the message given to most professionals in the state is that the state hospital system including AMRTC (like practically all other hospitals in the state system) was going to be shut down. Only the practical fact that there is always a backlog of committed patients waiting to get in to AMRTC prevents it from being shut down.  But the key question remains - is this really the attitude of managers at the level of the State of Minnesota?

The second problematic attitude that I have heard about constantly is written about in the recent article (1):

"Nearly half of the 101 patients currently there no longer meet the hospital-level criteria for care but are kept at the hospital because they have nowhere to go in the community. In 2013 alone, patients spent a total of 13,800 unnecessary days at Anoka-Metro after they were treated — enough to care for another 140 patients, according to a state legislative report."

This is a good example of circular reasoning.  The reason why patients spend so-called "unnecessary days" at AMRTC is that there are no other facilities that can manage their behavior.  I am aware of programs where very aggressive individuals are managed in very small settings (2 to 4 resident group homes) and the staff is taught to physically restrain them when they become very aggressive.  That is really an unacceptable long term solution to the problem for many reasons.  It is time to stop pretending that long term hospitals are acute care hospitals and that they should be managed like acute care community hospitals.  A transient reduction in symptoms does not mean that a patient at AMRTC is spending "unnecessary days" at the hospital.  If they cannot successfully transition to a community placement - they probably need to be there.

The real and unaddressed issues (beyond the CMS report):

1. The effect of the message that state hospitals should all be closed: As a psychiatrist in the state, this is what I have been hearing for a long time. It is really not possible to develop a quality of care focus or have the necessary stable staffing patterns of experienced staff, when those same staff are hearing that the state is trying to close down the facility and that many people at the facility don't need to be there. Instead - the facility should be managed as one that can provide state-of-the-art care to patients with complex problems including violence and aggression. Another aspect of that is eliminating the positions of experienced staff to save money. You will never have a high quality program using this approach and yet the state has used this approach.

2. The effect of management from higher levels: This seemed to stand out as I read the issue of "generic treatment plans" from the CMS report. At some level all treatment plans become "generic treatment plan". The evidence is that you can purchase treatment planning texts for nursing, psychotherapy and to a lesser degree psychiatry that will show you generic treatment plans for an entire list of problems. Is the problem really a generic treatment plan that covers most interaction or the lack of a treatment plan that addresses a high degree of aggression? I would contend that it is the latter.

Complicating that issue are previous stories about how plans were implemented by state administrators with no psychiatric experience to address patient aggression. I sat in on one of these sessions that suggested that a focus on the aggressive person as a psychologically traumatized individual was the best way to proceed, but not much specifics after that. Is at least part of the problem that state hospital staff have inadequate guidance on what to do about aggression? Are they reluctant to intervene early or clearly document what happened and their response because the response from administrators is inconsistent? Are they being advised to use interventions that are ineffective?

3. The lack of teamwork and possibly a split staff: One of the most dangerous problems in any inpatient psychiatric environment is staff splitting - some of the staff are praised and well liked and other are criticized and disliked. This emotional environment in inpatient care leads to problems in patient care. Splitting needs to be minimized or eliminated largely by recognizing that professionalism and the objective analysis and treatment of problems is the real priority. I have been in treatment environments where staff were disliked or falsely accused and that lead to major problems in patient care and episodes of aggression. It also leads to staff turnover.  The attitude of administrators can be particularly insidious and create an immediate rift among the staff.

4. The influx of inmates into AMRTC that is caused by the current public policy of rationing community psychiatric care and the resulting shift in the cost of care to the correctional system: Instead of addressing the widespread problem of rationing psychiatric care for the severely mentally ill - the solution is currently to dump at least some of them from law enforcement facilities to a rationed long term care facility. How is that a solution to anything?

These are the real problems at AMRTC and within the state system as far as I can tell. This is all based on what I read in the papers, the CMS report, and my extensive inpatient and out patient experience as well as experience treating aggressive people. The CMS report while noting significant problems does not come close to addressing these issues and makes it seem that addressing problems in patient care or documentation will correct the problem with aggression within this system.

I doubt it is that easy.



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


1:  Chris Serres.  Anoka state mental hospital violated basic rules for patient care, feds say generic treatment plans, other issues put mental hospital's federal funding at risk. StarTribune January 16, 2016.

2: Chris Serres. State psychiatric hospital in Anoka threatened with loss of federal funding. Minneapolis StarTribune January 4, 2016.

Minnesota State Hospitals Need To Be Managed To Minimize Aggression

When is that going to happen?  How much time will it take?

According to new Minneapolis StarTribune article by Chris Serres the situation at the state's second largest state mental hospital has worsened to the point that it has caught the attention of regulators from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  CMS put the state on notice that it at risk for losing $3.5 million in federal funding if they don't correct patient safety issues at the hospital by March 5.  The hospital is described as having experienced a "surge" in violence and aggression with associated injuries since the state Legislature passed a 48 hour rule mandating that jail inmates identified in as having mental health problems be directly admitted to Anoka Regional Metro Regional Treatment Center.  The jail inmates were given priority status over any civilly committed persons in community hospitals.  The article points out that there have been 38 aggression-related injuries involving 24 patients in 2013 and 48 aggression-related injuries involving 28 patients in 2014.  A direct assault on a staff person is described in the article.

I have a few suggestions for legislators, bureaucrats, and citizens of the State of Minnesota on how this can be resolved as soon as possible.  Let me preface this by saying that I have no special knowledge about what is happening at AMRTC apart from what is in the Seres article.  I am one of a handful of psychiatrists in the state who have worked in these settings and am qualified to comment on these issues.  I have a formal request in to the Department of Human Services to review a copy of the CMS report because I cannot find it on the Internet, the DHS web site, the CMS web site, or the office of the Inspector General.  My suggestions follow:

1.  Rescind the 48 hour rule to send unscreened jail inmates to AMRTC immediately:

Any psychiatrist could have provided consultation at the time on the reasons why this will not work, but the biggest reason is that psychiatric symptoms or even a psychiatric diagnosis does not necessarily mean that a psychiatric hospital is the best place for the patient.  Patients admitted to inpatient units are screened for psychiatric disorders and not on the basis of alleged criminal behavior.  In terms of logistics within the state hospital system patients who are dangerously aggressive have generally been committed as mentally ill and dangerous and generally sent to the Security Hospital at St. Peter. It is fairly common to encounter sociopathic and psychopathic patients in community psychiatric hospital.  It soon becomes obvious that apart from the personality disorder and the associated aggressive and inappropriate behaviors that there are no treatable problems.  This patients often become aggressive toward staff or exploit other patients and are immediately discharged from inpatient settings.  Inpatient psychiatric settings are not the correct place to address antisocial persons or in many cases antisocial persons even with a psychiatric diagnosis because of their danger to staff and other patients.

There is the associated issue of there being a strong incentive to send patients who may be difficult to work with but who are not psychiatrically ill to the hospital just because the rule exists.  Transfers like that always occur to psychiatric units if someone has carte blanche for admitting people and psychiatrists don't screen them.  Aggression can be minimized only when the entire unit is managed with a safety focus and that includes screening anyone with aggression who is admitted.

2.  Reanalyze the culture at AMRTC with an emphasis on staff safety:

It is really impossible to run a psychiatric hospital if the staff responsible for the care of the patients are threatened and/or burned out.  The article lead me to believe that both things are happening and compounded by the fact that hospital staff is being mandated to work extra hours.  In the initial stages that may require the presence of additional security staff.  I have seen similar situations where the level of antisocial and aggressive behavior on an inpatient unit became overwhelming resulting in a riot situation that required police intervention.  Some attempts at splitting up large state hospitals to smaller local facilities in the state have resulted in similar incidents.

A critical element of the culture that has come to light in recent years is the fact that there appears  to be a top down initiative in the management of state facilities.  Aggressive behavior has been an ongoing problem at state facilities.  Psychiatric input into that problem is not clear.  It is clear that in at least some cases, programs were implemented by management staff who have no expertise in managing aggression and violence in inpatient settings.

Like most psychiatric problems aggression is a treatable problem, but it has to be addressed directly.  It is best address in an environment that identifies it as a treatable problem immediately rather than an untreatable characteristic or one that has a root cause that must be addressed first.  There is not better way to treat aggression than identifying it as a primary problem that is incompatible with a therapeutic environment.

3.  Take a serious look at how inpatient psychiatric facilities are supposed to run:

State governments and managed care systems have both had deleterious effects on psychiatric care on inpatient units.  These management systems have a lot in common in determining what happens on the inpatient side.  The absolute worst case scenario is containment only.  People are basically held usually based on the premise that they are dangerous in some way.  Dangerous in this context generally means at risk for aggressive or suicidal behavior.  They are discharged when that dangerousness passes either by the administration of medication, the person resolving a crisis in their life, or until they convince staff that they are no longer dangerous.  This approach to inpatient care seriously dumbs down psychiatry, treats patients like widgets on an assembly line rather than individuals, and creates the illusion that anyone can do inpatient psychiatry.  Dangerousness after all is not a psychiatric diagnosis.  It also creates the illusion that an inpatient psychiatric unit is tantamount to incarceration or jail.  It leads to a correctional atmosphere in what should be a therapeutic hospital environment.  In a correctional atmosphere, the staff seem to be policing the patients rather than working with them on common goals.  This attitude has also led at least one state official to suggest that psychiatrists in this environment are optional.  A local mental health advocate has said the same thing.  If that is true - why is it that the state of aggression in this hospital has gotten to the point that the union representative in the article is suggesting that the institution is being run by the patients?


4.  Rexamine the funding and rationing of psychiatric care in Minnesota:

The article mentions a backlog of patients at AMRTC due to the fact that many of them cannot be discharged.  This has been a problem in Minnesota for as long as I can remember.  Patients are committed in acute care hospitals and end up waiting there too long for transfer to AMRTC.  Once they get to AMRTC they meet criteria for discharge and there is nowhere for them to go, largely because they still have chronic psychiatric symptoms that are socially unacceptable or that preclude their safety in the community.  Anyone who is covered by standard health insurance is no longer covered if they are committed to a state hospital.  People can end up undergoing civil commitment because their insurance companies do not provide the level of care that they require in the community.  The entire system of fragmented and rationed care can be viewed as a way for the government and managed care companies to minimize their funding of necessary care, especially in patients with complex problems.  A basic option here is to expand care based on treatment parameters rather than rationing criteria.  Develop treatment based and quality goals rather than rationing goals that provide minimal and frequently inadequate care.  One of the basic principles of community psychiatry is that the funding needs to follow the patient.  If patients are committed and transferred to state hospitals and they are on private insurance plans - those plans need to have continued financial responsibility for those patients.  If a patient with private insurance needs treatment in jail, those services need to be covered by private insurance rather than being shifted to law enforcement.  The entire system of rationing and cost shifting is also a strong incentive to transfer any mentally ill inmate to AMRTC because law enforcement is covering the cost of medical and psychiatric care.  

5.  Facilities for mentally ill inmates that recognizes their vulnerability:

One of the concerns that I have always had for any inmate with a mental illness, is that they are generally much more vulnerable to any form of manipulation or intimidation by career criminals and sociopaths.  The second concern is that many patients with mental illnesses end up in jail because they are symptomatic and/or confused and end up trespassing or in dangerous situations.  They are often not able to follow instructions by the police.  Some Minnesota counties have mechanisms to safeguard this population.  One of them is having them screened in jail for competency to proceed to trial by qualified psychiatrists and psychologists.  The resolution in those cases is that the patient is transferred to an inpatient psychiatric unit for stabilization and the pending legal charges are usually dropped.  They can frequently be discharged from the acute care hospital without transfer to a state hospital.  In cases where this does not occur, every effort should be made to segregate the vulnerable inmates who are mentally ill from the general jail or prison population.  The ideal situation would allow for more programming to prevent some of the common correctional problems like isolation that lead to increasing symptoms.    

These are a few suggestions to resolve the current problems with aggression noted to exist at at AMRTC.  Over the years that I have been following this story, there is also the question of what is really going on in these facilities?  Why are these problems so difficult to resolve when acute care hospitals have fewer problems and are dealing with more acutely agitated and frequently intoxicated individuals.  Why does the bureaucracy think they can resolve these problems without using psychiatric expertise or at least methods that have been proven to work in psychiatric institutions?  And what about the alternate and seemingly more permissive methods of dealing with aggression?  Can anyone come out with a comment on whether or not they have succeeded or failed?  There is a lack of transparency when it comes to seeking the answers to these questions.

These are all important questions that need to be answered.  I hope to receive the CMS report and make further comments on this situation.  There is a lack of transparency about what the state is doing to resolve this situation.  When the state assumes the care of mentally ill individuals - people who by definition are vulnerable adults, transparency is important to assure their adequate care and reassure the families of all of the patients admitted to this hospital.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA




References:


1:  Chris Serres.  State psychiatric hospital in Anoka threatened with loss of federal funding.  Minneapolis StarTribune January 4, 2016.


Attribution:

The jail photograph at the top of this blog is by Andrew Bardwell from Cleveland, Ohio, USA (Jail Cell) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.  The URL is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACela.jpg