4.5 Article

Self-destructive acts occurring during medical general hospitalization

期刊

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 115-121

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0163-8343(00)00052-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although several articles about suicide in general hospitals have been published, the rates of self-destructive individuals among various diseases and departments have not been reported previously. Moreover, self-destructive acts in Chinese general hospital inpatients have been neglected. We retrospectively investigated self-destructive incidents among medical general inpatients. A total of 75 self-destructive incidents, including 15 fatalities, were identified during the 10-year study period. The self-destructive rate was 8.7 per 100,000, and the fatality rate was 1.8 per 100,000 admissions. The highest self-destructive rate occurred in patients admitted to the rehabilitation weird (33.4 per 100,000) followed by the neurology ward (29.9 per 100,000). The highest fatality rate occurred among patients in the neurology ward (6.7 per 100,000). The majority of self-destructive patients suffered from a chronic or terminal illness with the most frequent types of illnesses being malignant neoplasm (31.1%), neurological disease (20.3%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, 10.8%). COPD patients had the highest rate of self-destructive behavior (64.0 per 100,000) and the highest fatality rate (16.0 per 100,000) due to these incidents. The most common self-destructive incident was knife-cutting More than one-half (53.4%) of the self-destructive incidents occurred within the first 2 weeks of admission, and nearly one-half (46.7%) occurred during the night shift. Moreover, the majority of severe or fatal incidents also occurred during the night shift. The results suggest that close supervision of high-risk patients should be mandatory within the first 2 weeks following admission, especially during the night shift. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据