Table 1.
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 |
Percentage 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
The 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).
Measures the patient’s dangerousness to self or others and grave disability