Mental health needs associated with COVID-19 on the diamond princess cruise ship: A case series recorded by the disaster psychiatric assistance team

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection prevention measures have led to a variety of mental health issues. Although several self-care methods have been recommended for those quarantined, evidence regarding how best to support quarantined people experiencing a mental health crisis is limited. In February 2020, the Diamond Princess cruise ship was quarantined in Yokohama port, Japan following a passenger testing positive for COVID-19. We were sent to address the mental health issues as the Disaster Psychiatric Assistance Team (DPAT). In the present study, we examined the acute mental health needs of the passengers and crew collected by the DPAT using the standard Emergency Medical Team daily reporting system. We assessed 206 cases (99 men and 107 women) with generic health issues and 127 cases (39 men and 88 women) with mental health issues. Mental health issues including disaster stress-related symptoms were as frequent as physical health events associated with COVID-19. The most significant mental health issue was anxiety, as an acute psychological reaction to the quarantine situation. Women and crews most frequently needed mental health support. Mental health improved in most clients after brief counseling. Although several passengers experienced suicidal ideation, there were no cases of actual suicide attempts during the quarantine period. This case has been regarded as a well-known public health event at the beginning of the COVID-19 era. In addition to physical health support, disaster mental health support was essential to save lives. Our findings may facilitate responses to future quarantines, accidents, and mental health crises.

[The review of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric practice]

In order to create the least restrictive setting in psychiatric practice, we investigated the effects of an assessment by a committee on seclusion and restraint. Using consistent procedures, the committees, which were established in 9 hospitals, reviewed seclusion and restraint maintained for periods of over 2 weeks during a 4-month period. Frequency and duration of seclusion and restraint, staff perceptions of and attitudes to the review system, and patient satisfaction were evaluated before and after the study period. As a result of this review process, the frequency of seclusion decreased slightly in 7 hospitals and 1 of the remaining 2 hospitals showed an increased frequency of seclusion days that were partially interrupted. Frequency of restraint decreased slightly in 5 hospitals, and of the remaining 3, 1 interrupted all periods of restraint, while the other 2 institutions showed an increase in interruption of restraint periods. As there were no common patients in 2 specialist psychiatric emergency hospitals between before and after the study periods, statistical analyses were performed. Only minor variables such as duration of partially interrupted periods of restraint, and duration of periods of restraint that were partially released showed a statistically significant increase. Although patient satisfaction showed a significant increase, staff attitudes to and perceptions of the review system became appreciably more negative. These findings suggest that although the review system had the potential to slightly reduce the use of seclusion and restraint, and to increase patient satisfaction, staff burnout was risked because staff effort was perceived to be disproportionately high in relation to the effect achieved. Furthermore, the possibility remains that the slight decrease of seclusion and restraint demonstrated did not necessarily reflect the appropriate use of these strategies, and were not necessarily lasting effects. However, as differences in opinion existed between the review system committee and treating clinicians regarding continuation of long term seclusion and restraint, the review system could have a role in monitoring the long term use of seclusion and restraint. Further investigation is needed into the long term effectiveness of procedures reviewing the use of seclusion and restraint in the psychiatric setting, taking into account both positive and negative outcomes.