Hospitalisation outcomes for patients with severe mental illness treated by female vs. male psychiatry residents

Abstract

Objective

Recent literature suggests that female physicians provide higher quality of care compared to their male counterparts across a variety of physical medical conditions. We examine whether a similar phenomenon is observed for psychiatry residents treating hospitalised psychiatric patients.

Methods

We analysed 300 hospitalised patient records from Shalvata Mental Healthcare Centre (Hod Hasharon, Israel). Resident-patient sex matchings were compared.

Results

No significant differences were observed in terms of residents’ age and patients’ age, medical condition and hospitalisation history. Male and female patients treated by female residents presented shorter hospitalisations (58 and 54 days compared to 67 and 66 days, respectively, p < .05), longer time to next hospitalisation (269 and 179 days compared to 179 and 123 days, respectively, p < .01), lower 30-day readmission rate (37% and 35% compared to 10% and 19%, respectively, p < .05), higher levels of family involvement during hospitalisation (2.6 and 2.7 points compared to 2.1 and 1.9 points, respectively, p < .01) and higher chances of obtaining rehabilitation services (39% and 34% vs. 23% and 17%, respectively, p < .05).

Conclusions

Hospitalised patients treated by female psychiatry residents are associated with better hospitalisation outcomes compared to those cared for by male residents.

KEY POINTS

• Both male and female patients treated by female residents presented better hospitalisation outcomes.

• These hospitalisation outcomes include shorter hospitalisation periods, longer time to next hospitalisation, lower 30-day remission rate, significantly higher levels of family involvement and higher chances of obtaining rehabilitation services.

• Further work is needed in order to investigate the sources and reasons for the identified differences.

Keywords:

• Hospitalization outcomes
• psychiatry residents
• case management

Disclosure statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Notes

1 We use the term "quasi-randomly" since a true randomised allocation mechanism cannot be implemented in practice given residents’ exams, vacations, sick-days, etc.

2 All patients admitted to one of the closed wards during 2021 were extracted and randomly sorted. The first 300 patients who met our criteria were selected.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.