Table 1.

Two logistic regression models of factors affecting decisions about use of less restrictive alternatives during 425 patient evaluations conducted in psychiatric emergency services at seven California general hospitals¹

	Less restrictive alternative used			Less restrictive alternative overlooked
Variables2	b	Exp(b)	p	b	Exp(b)	p
Quality of care indicators
Art of Care Scale	1.26	3.54	.02	−2.32	.10	<.01
Technical Quality of Care Scale	−1.54	.21	.01	ns	ns	ns
Optimum time for evaluation	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Indicators of severity of patient’s condition
Benefit From Hospitalization Scale	−3.12	.04	<.01	ns	ns	ns
Treatability Scale	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns
Three Ratings of Involuntary Admissibility Scale3	−.50	.61	<.01	ns	ns	ns
Diagnosis of psychotic disorder	−1.46	.23	<.01	ns	ns	ns

¹Percentage of case dispositions correctly predicted: less restrictive alternative used, 84.7 percent; less restrictive alternative overlooked, 89.1; model χ²=262.77, p<.001, for less restrictive alternative used; model χ²=35.20, p<.037, for less restrictive alternative overlooked; goodness of fit=523.87, p<.001, for loss restrictive alternative used; goodness of fit=469.91, p=.004, for less restrictive alternative overlooked

²The analyses controlled for social bias indicators (whether the clinician liked the patient; whether the clinician had preconceptions about the patient; the patient’s female gender, age, and ethnicity; whether the patient was referred by the police; whether the patient was a community nuisance; whether the patient was homeless and resourceless; and history of hospitalization) and institutional constraints (the clinician’s length of experience, the clinician-patient language and ethnic match, whether the patient had no insurance, the clinician’s workload, and the difficulties in the physical setting of the emergency service).

³Measures the patient’s dangerousness to self or others and grave disability