Mental Health Care In Germany Research Articles

Reductions in inpatient and outpatient mental health care in germany during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic - What can we learn for a better crisis preparedness?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, reports from several European mental health care systems hinted at important changes in utilization. So far, no study examined changes in utilization in the German mental health care inpatient and outpatient mental health care system comprehensively. This longitudinal observational study used claims data from two major German statutory health insurances, AOK PLUS and BKK, covering 162,905 inpatients and 2,131,186 outpatients with mental disorders nationwide. We analyzed changes in inpatient and outpatient mental health service utilization over the course of the first two lockdown phases (LDPs) of the pandemic in 2020 compared to a pre-COVID-19 reference period dating from March 2019 to February 2020 using a time series forecast model. We observed significant decreases in the number of inpatient hospital admissions by 24-28% compared to the reference period. Day clinic admissions were even further reduced by 44-61%. Length of stay was significantly decreased for day clinic care but not for inpatient care. In the outpatient sector, the data showed a significant reduction in the number of incident outpatient diagnoses. Indirect evidence regarding the consequences of the reductions in both the inpatient and outpatient sector of care described in this study is ambiguous and direct evidence on treatment outcomes and quality of trans-sectoral mental healthcare is sparse. In line with WHO and OECD we propose a comprehensive mental health system surveillance to prepare for a better oversight and thereby a better resilience during future global major disruptions.

The German Center for Mental Health : Innovative translational research to promote prevention, targeted intervention and resilience

Due to the high disease burden, the early onset and often long-term trajectories mental disorders are among the most widespread diseases with growing significance. The German Center for Mental Health (DZPG) was established to enhance research conditions and expedite the translation of clinically relevant findings into practice. The aim of the DZPG is to optimize mental healthcare in Germany, influence modifiable social causes and to develop best practice models of care for vulnerable groups. It seeks to promote mental health and resilience, combat the stigmatization associated with mental disorders, and contribute to the enhancement of treatment across all age groups. The DZPG employs atranslational research program that accelerates the translation of basic research findings into clinical studies and general practice. University hospitals and outpatient departments, other university disciplines, and extramural research institutions are working together to establish acollaboratively coordinated infrastructure for accelerated translation and innovation. The research areas encompass 1)the interaction of somatic and mental risk and resilience factors and disorders across the lifespan, 2)influencing relevant modifiable environmental factors and 3)based on this personalized prevention and intervention. The DZPG aims to develop innovative preventive and therapeutic tools that enable an improvement in care for individuals with mental disorders. It involves acomprehensive integration of experts with experience at all levels of decision-making and employs trilogue and participatory approaches in all research projects.

Implementing peer support work in mental health care in Germany: The methodological framework of the collaborative, participatory, mixed-methods study (ImpPeer-Psy5).

Starting in the 1990s in the United States, individuals with lived experience of mental health crises and recovery have been employed as peer support workers (PSWs) internationally. However, the implementation of PSW in clinical contexts remains challenging. This manuscript presents and discusses the methodological framework of the ImpPeer-Psy5 study on the PSWimplementation in the German mental healthcare sector. This study used a mixed-methods and collaborative research approach, as well as participatory research strategies. After describing the study design, populations, teamworkand assessments, the epistemic challenges of its methodological framework will be critically discussedand how it has iteratively shaped the object of study. The healthcare, policyand funding context of PSW implementation as well as the study's methodological framework have differently influenced the ways in which the implementation of PSW has been conceived in this study. The choice of a collaborative or participatory methodological framework is advised to better align research questions and procedures to the specific needs and challenges of PSWs and other stakeholders concerned with PSW implementation. The research team of the ImpPeer-Psy5 study was collaboratively staffed by a portion of researchers who also identify as users or survivors of psychiatric services. A nonprofit organization for the training of PSWs served as a practice partner throughout the research process. Different participatory formats involve a significant number of diverse stakeholders relevant to PSW implementation.

Development and implementation of quality indicators in a group of nine psychiatric hospitals

Quality indicators (QI) are becoming increasingly important in mental healthcare in Germany. QI can be used for various purposes, such as for creating transparency as well as for benchmarking between hospitals. QI themselves are subject to high quality standards. The aim of this report is to describe the development and implementation of QI in a group of psychiatric hospitals. Since 2015, the LVR hospital group has developed and gradually implemented QI for the purposes of quality measurement, quality assurance and internal benchmarking in its nine psychiatric hospitals in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, scientifically accompanied process. The full LVR-QI set, consisting of eight structure-, twelve process- and four outcome indicators as well as one patient satisfaction questionnaire, was implemented by 2019. In order to create high documentation quality and acceptance by clinicians, various implementation and dissemination strategies were used, such as written documentation manuals, staff training as well as regular face-to-face communication between the LVR hospitals, the LVR Institute for Health Services Research as the central coordinating body and the headquarters of the LVR hospital group. The QI led to a quality-oriented dialogue within and between the LVR hospitals.

Multiperspective and Multimethod Evaluation of Flexible and Integrative Psychiatric Care Models in Germany: Study Protocol of a Prospective, Controlled Multicenter Observational Study (PsychCare).

Background: New cross-sectoral mental health care models have been initiated in Germany to overcome the fragmentation of the German health care system. Starting in 2013, flexible and integrative psychiatric care model projects according to §64b SGB V German Social Law (FIT64b) have been implemented. The study “PsychCare” combines quantitative and qualitative primary data with routine health insurance data for the evaluation of these models. Effects, costs and cost-effectiveness from the perspectives of patients, relatives and care providers are compared with standard care. Additionally, quality indicators for a modern, flexible and integrated care are developed. This article describes the rationale, design and methods of the project.Methods: “PsychCare” is built on a multiperspective and multimethod design. A controlled prospective multicenter cohort study is conducted with three data collection points (baseline assessment, follow-up after 9 and 15 months). A total of 18 hospitals (10 FIT64b model and 8 matched control hospitals) have consecutively recruited in- and outpatients with pre-specified common and/or severe psychiatric disorders. Primary endpoints are differences in change of health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction. Sociodemographic and service receipt data of the primary data collection are linked with routine health insurance data. A cost-effectiveness analysis, a mixed method, participatory process evaluation by means of qualitative surveys and the development of quality indicators are further elements of “PsychCare.”Discussion and Practical Implications: The results based on data from different methodological approaches will provide essential conclusions for the improvement of hospital based mental health care in Germany. This should result in the identification of key FIT64b elements that can be efficiently implemented into standard care in Germany and re-structure the care strongly aligned to patient needs.Clinical Trial Registration: German Clinical Trial Register, identifier DRKS 00022535.

Implementation of a peer support worker in a forensic hospital in germany

Experienced Involvement (also called Peer Support Work, PSW) has existed in mental health care in Germany since 2005 though its implementation lags behind, compared to other countries. Due to the unique challenges of forensic-psychiatric settings, implementation of PSW in these settings is even less developed. We prepared the implementation of a peer support worker in our forensic hospital for addicted offenders in Germany in several steps: A survey amongst the 75 forensic hospitals in Germany was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of PSW in these settings. Individual interviews were conducted with directors and peer support workers of forensic clinics nation-wide to investigate their facilities’ experiences with PSW. Focus groups with several occupational groups of the clinic in Rostock addressed staffs opinions, expectations and reservations regarding peer support work. These were recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis. Results: revealed that the majority of forensic hospitals (83.6%) has no experience with peer support work. Interviews with external clinic directors revealed similar concerns and expectations among the employees as our focus groups did. Staff at the clinics expected the peer support worker to offer useful experiences and new perspectives. Concerns occurred about stability of health condition of the peer support worker, trust issues because of former criminal behavior and attitudes towards psychiatric treatment that might interfere with professional treatment negatively. Furthermore the clinic directors stressed the importance of a well prepared implementation and a good “fit” of the peer support workers background to the patients (e.g. regarding diagnosis).DisclosureNo significant relationships.

Multifactorial barriers in the implementation of schizophrenia and psychosocial therapies guidelines: A quantitative study across different professions

BackgroundClinical guidelines can facilitate the transfer of scientific evidence into clinical practice, yet their implementation still faces difficulties. The aim of this study was to examine the implementation status of the current German evidence- and consensus-based guidelines for schizophrenia (2019) and psychosocial therapies (2019) and to identify barriers as well as facilitators in guideline adherence. MethodsWe used a quantitative approach by developing an online questionnaire, focusing on the current implementation status as well as barriers and facilitators in guideline adherence. The questionnaire was sent to 100 hospitals for psychiatry and psychosomatics and 52 professional associations in mental healthcare in Germany (investigation period: 10/2019–01/2020). ResultsIn total, 657 mental healthcare professionals (MHCP, e.g. medical doctors, psychologists, psychosocial therapists, caregivers) provided sufficient responses for analyses. Less than half (47%) of our participants were aware of the existence of the guideline for psychosocial therapies, while 74% exhibited awareness of the schizophrenia guideline. A minority reported to adhere to the current guidelines for schizophrenia (41%) and psychosocial interventions (18%). Profession-related differences in the implementation-status were detected. Specifically, medical doctors exhibited higher awareness rates than psychosocial therapists and caregivers and additionally higher adherence rates than psychologists and caregivers. Medical doctors were less exposed to knowledge-related barriers (e.g. lack of guideline familiarity), while no differences across professions were found in external/behavior-related barriers (e.g. long versions). Discussion and conclusionOur findings indicate that the implementation of guidelines as well as related barriers vary between professions. To prevent a growing gap in guideline adherence between MHCP, target-specific implementation strategies should be considered.

How does the integration of collaborative care elements in a gatekeeping system affect the costs for mental health care in Germany?

Mental disorders are widespread, debilitating and associated with high costs. In Germany, usual care (UC) for mental disorders is afflicted by poor coordination between providers and long waiting times. Recently, the primary alternative to UC-the gatekeeping-based general practitioners (GP) program-was extended by the collaborative Psychiatry-Neurology-Psychotherapy (PNP) program, which is a selective contract designed to improve mental health care and the allocation of resources. Here, we assess the effects of the GP program and the PNP program on costs for mental health care. We analyzed claims data from 2014 to 2016 of 55,472 adults with a disorder addressed by PNP to compare costs and sick leave days between PNP, the GP program and UC. The individuals were grouped and balanced via entropy balancing to adjust for potentially confounding covariates. We employed a negative binomial model to compare sick leave days and two-part models to compare sick pay, outpatient, inpatient and medication costs over a 12-month period. The PNP program significantly reduced sick pay by 164€, compared to UC, and by 177€, compared to the GP program. Consistently, sick leave days were lower in PNP. We found lower inpatient costs in PNP than in UC (-194€) and in the GP program (-177€), but no reduction in those shares of inpatient costs that accrued in psychiatric or neurological departments. Our results suggest that integrating collaborative care elements in a gatekeeping system can favourably impact costs. In contrast, we found no evidence that the widely implemented GP program reduces costs for mental health care.

Differentiating BPD in adolescents with NSSI disorder: the role of adverse childhood experiences and current social relationships

BackgroundAs borderline personality disorder (BPD) is increasingly considered a lifespan developmental disorder, we need to focus on risk factors and precursors in the developmental pathways to BPD, in order to enable early detection and intervention. Within this developmental pathway, adolescence is a crucial phase in the light of the manifestation of the disorder. Relational factors such as adverse childhood experiences and current relational problems can be considered important in adolescents who are at-risk for BPD. Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a key precursor for adolescent BPD and one of the most promising targets for early detection and intervention of BPD.MethodsIn a clinical sample of 152 adolescents engaging in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) disorder referred to mental healthcare in Germany, this study investigated whether we can differentiate who has BPD from 1) adverse childhood experiences; and 2) the quality of current relationships, both with parents and peers. BPD was assessed both categorically as a dichotomized score and dimensionally as a continuous score.ResultsMore adverse childhood experiences, but not low quality of current social relationships, were related to more BPD symptoms and an increased risk for meeting full criteria for BPD. In the dimensional model, current social relationship quality with parents and peers did not show a moderating (protecting or aggravating) effect on the association between adverse childhood experiences and BPD. Using a categorical approach, however, the association between childhood adversity and meeting full criteria for BPD was higher in individuals reporting higher quality of current parent-child relationship.ConclusionsThese results highlight adverse childhood experiences as risk factors of BPD, while the role of current social relationships seems more complex.

Psychiatrists’ views on different types of advance statements in mental health care in Germany

Advance directives enable patients to ensure that treatment decisions will be based on their autonomous will, even if they are incompetent at the time at which the treatment decision is taken. Although psychiatric advance directives are legally binding in Germany and their benefits are widely acknowledged, they are still infrequently used in German psychiatric practice. The aim of this study is to assess psychiatrists' attitudes toward the use of advance statements in mental health care. A postal survey of psychiatrists in Germany was carried out to examine their views on advance statements in psychiatry. The survey addressed psychiatrists' experiences of and attitudes toward different types of advance statements, including psychiatric advance statements written by patients without any specific assistance, and joint crisis plans ( 'Behandlungsvereinbarungen'), where involvement of the clinical team is required. A total of 396 responded. Results suggest that generally speaking, respondents held favorable views on joint crisis plans for mental health care. In all, 80.7% of participants agreed that more frequent use of joint crisis plans in clinical practice would be desirable. However, clinicians' attitudes differ largely depending on the type of advance statement. Implications for the use of advance statements in psychiatry are discussed. The findings suggest that increasing the support structures available to train physicians and inform patients could lead to increased adoption of advance statements.

Does one size really fit all? The effectiveness of a non-diagnosis-specific integrated mental health care program in Germany in a prospective, parallel-group controlled multi-centre trial

BackgroundThe Network for Mental Health (NWpG-IC) is an integrated mental health care program implemented in 2009 by cooperation between health insurance companies and community mental health providers in Germany. Meanwhile about 10,000 patients have been enrolled. This is the first study evaluating the effectiveness of the program in comparison to standard mental health care in Germany.MethodsIn a parallel-group controlled trial over 18 months conducted in five regions across Germany, a total of 260 patients enrolled in NWpG-IC and 251 patients in standard mental health care (TAU) were recruited between August 2013 and November 2014. The NWpG-IC patients had access to special services such as community-based multi-professional teams, case management, crisis intervention and family-oriented psychoeducation in addition to standard mental health care. The primary outcome empowerment (EPAS) and the secondary outcomes quality of life (WHO-QoL-BREF), satisfaction with psychiatric treatment (CSQ-8), psychosocial and clinical impairment (HoNOS) and information about mental health service needs (CAN) were measured four times at 6-month intervals. Linear mixed-effect regression models were used to estimate the main effects and interaction effects of treatment, time and primary diagnosis. Due to the non-randomised group assignment, propensity score adjustment was used to control the selection bias.ResultsNWpG-IC and TAU groups did not differ with respect to most primary and secondary outcomes in our participating patients who showed a broad spectrum of psychiatric diagnoses and illness severities. However, a significant improvement in terms of patients’ satisfaction with psychiatric care and their perception of treatment participation in favour of the NWpG-IC group was found.ConclusionsProviding integrated mental health care for unspecific mentally ill target groups increases treatment participation and service satisfaction but seems not suitable to enhance the overall outcomes of mental health care in Germany. The implementation of strategies for ameliorating the needs orientation of the NWpG-IC should be considered.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Register DRKS00005111, registered 26 July 2013.

Cooperation, Job Satisfaction and Burn Out - Sustainability in Outpatient Mental Health Care among Medical Specialists in Germany

Objective Cooperation, job satisfaction, and burn out risk are indicators of sustainability in mental health services. Thus they were assessed among registered medical specialists in outpatient mental health care in Germany. Method A postal survey consisting of three questionnaires about cooperation, job satisfaction, and burnout was carried out among all registered medical specialists in outpatient mental health care in Germany (n = 4,430). Results 14.1 % (n = 626) of the specialists responded to the survey. Quality and quantity of cooperation regarding mental health care services were rated diverse, job satisfaction was assessed medium to high, and burnout risk was low to medium. Higher job satisfaction correlated with good quality of cooperation, fewer years of practice, fewer patients' chronically ill, more patients who as well seek psychotherapy, and less time spent on cooperation. Low burn out risk correlated with good quality of cooperation, higher age, single practice setting and a higher amount of patients who as well seek psychotherapy. Conclusion Quality and quantity of cooperation in outpatient mental health care - especially regarding community mental health care institutions - should be fostered. Aspects to be considered to reinforce job satisfaction and minimize burn out risk are age, years of practice, quality and quantity of cooperation, practice setting, and the mixture of patients.

Evaluating Innovative Mental Health Care in Germany

Evaluating innovative mental health care in Germany Thomas Becker, Annabel Stierlin, Reinhold Kilian, Ulm/Gunzburg, Germany There is an interest in innovative mental health service models in Germany. This comprises, among others, crisis intervention and home treatment service models and assertive community treatment teams. Innovative funding models are being put to test. There are several catchment areas in the country where care is provided according to a capitation funding model that gives a high degree of freedom to health care providers in what services they use to provide care for patients (Regionale Psychiatriebudgets). Models of this type are also used in so-called model projects on the basis of federal law (Modellvorhaben §64b SGBV). In Hamburg, a comprehensive community- and hospital-based service for people with severe mental illness has been implemented (IV Vertrag) and put to test in the ACCESS trial. The focus of this talk is on an observational controlled trial (IVPower) studying the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an integrated community-base care programme (NWpG) implemented in several regions of Germany (in five federal states, Schleswig-Holstein, Northrhine-Westfalia, Berlin, Saxony and Bavaria. The 18-month multi-centre observational trial enrolls 250 patients in the NWpG programme and 250 patients who receive treatment as usual from routine mental health services in five catchment areas. Data are collected at baseline and three follow-ups after 6, 12 and 18 months Preliminary study results will be presented and discussed.

The use of coercive interventions in mental health care in Germany and the Netherlands. A comparison of the developments in two neighboring countries.

In this review, we compare the use of coercion in mental health care in Germany and in the Netherlands. Legal frameworks and published data on involuntary commitment, involuntary medication, seclusion, and restraint are highlighted as well as the role of guidelines, training, and attitudes held by psychiatrists and the public. Legal procedures regulating involuntary admission and commitment are rather similar, and so is the percentage of involuntary admissions and the rate per 100,000 inhabitants. However, opposing trends can be observed in the use of coercive interventions during treatment, which in both countries are considered as a last resort after all other alternative approaches have failed. In the Netherlands, for a long time seclusion has been considered as preferred intervention while the use of medication by force was widely disapproved as being unnecessarily invasive. However, after increasing evidence showed that number and duration of seclusions as well as the number of aggressive incidents per admission were considerably higher than in other European countries, attitudes changed within recent years. A national program with spending of 15 million € was launched to reduce the use of seclusion, while the use of medication was facilitated. A legislation is scheduled, which will allow also outpatient coercive treatment. In Germany, the latter was never legalized. While coercive treatment in Germany was rather common for involuntarily committed patients and mechanical restraint was preferred to seclusion in most hospital as a containment measure, the decisions of the Constitutional Court in 2011 had a high impact on legislation, attitudes, and clinical practice. Though since 2013 coercive medication is approvable again under strict conditions, it is now widely perceived as very invasive and last resort. There is evidence that this change of attitudes lead to a considerable increase of the use of seclusion and restraint for some patients.

Psychiatry in Germany 2012

Healthcare in Germany is characterized by a dichotomy of a private and a public healthcare sector, which also pertains to mental healthcare. While the prevalence figures of mental disorders in Germany remained fairly constant over the last 15 years, utilization rates of healthcare services due to mental disorders increased by 70–80% including inpatient and outpatient services, sick leave cases and cases of early retirement due to mental disorders. Several challenges are currently evident for mental healthcare in Germany, ranging from interesting a sufficient number of medical students for this field of medicine, dealing with the yet unforeseeable consequences of a novel mental hospital remuneration system, better integration of services and remuneration providers, to elucidating the causes of the increasing utilization rates. Mental healthcare research will take centre stage in addressing these challenges.

Alternatives to inpatient treatment in the acute phase

As a consequence of the enquete report on the status of mental health care in Germany the first community mental health care reform programs were initiated in 1975. In the same period similar large scale activities started in England, the US, Canada and Scandinavia. However, in Germany most of the state mental hospitals were preserved with a reduced number of beds. Community mental health networks are now overall established. Innovative projects like home treatment, assertive community treatment, care management treatment and specialized mental health primary care were not established on a large scale basis across the country. Those more advanced community based services were only developed in several local projects partly funded by a federal program. E.g. the home treatment project in Krefeld including acutely ill patients and the crisis hotel project were funded by these means. Furthermore, integrative treatment programs were started by a federal law enabling to build up regional combinations of various primary care and specialized out- and inpatient services and offering a special mechanism of funding (SGB V §140); this specific option was developed for all medical disciplines (including psychiatry). Most of these projects and programs are accompanied by evaluation and service research due to their model character. Results emerging from the associated research programs will be presented. It is evident that particularly home treatment program increased the satisfication of patients and their relatives by achieving a degree of symptomatic improvement, social integration and rehabilitation which is comparable to hospital based treatment. Furthermore, direct costs are lower than for in-patient treatment. Yet, the number of projects is still limited, and long-term effects and efficiency remains unknown.

Mental health care in Germany

Germany turned towards community-based mental health care in the mid seventies, during a general climate of social and political reform. The continuing deinstitutionalisation process and the implementation of community mental health services was considerably affected by the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990, which required dramatic changes in the structure and quality of the mental health care system of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). Overall, German mental health care is organised as a subsidiary system, where planning and regulating mental health care is the responsibility of the 16 federal states. So German mental health care provision is spread among many sectors and characterised by considerable regional differences. A key characteristic is the particularly wide gap between inpatient and outpatient services, which are funded separately and staffed by different teams. In 2003 the total number of psychiatric beds was a mere two thirds of the overall bed capacity in 1991, the first year as a re-unified Germany, when psychiatric beds in East and West Germany totalled 80,275. From 1970 onwards the number of psychiatric beds was cut by roughly half. So the momentum of the reform has been strong enough to assimilate the completely different mental health care system of the former German Democratic Republic and, in the course of a decade, to re-structure mental health services for an additional 17-18 million new inhabitants. In an ongoing struggle to adapt to changing administrative set-ups, legal frameworks, and financial constraints, psychiatry in Germany in currently facing specific problems and is seriously challenged to defend to considerable achievements of the past. A major obstacle to achieving this aim lies in the fragmented system of mental health care provision and mental health care funding.

Evidenzbasierung gemeindepsychiatrischer Versorgungsangebote in Deutschland: eine Bestandsaufnahme

One of the outcomes of reforming mental health care in Germany has been the establishment of a range of community mental health services. However, current evidence for the effectiveness of these services is slight. Based on a literature search this article provides a systematic overview of empirical research in this sphere. In detail, social psychiatric services, crisis centres, psychosocial contact points, day care centres, and various models of supported housing and work/employment are assessed. Available results on effectiveness are classified according to their level of scientific evidence. The current state of research is characterised by the situation that effectiveness of the care approach provided by social psychiatric services and some types of supported housing and work/employment has been demonstrated at a medium level of scientific evidence. In contrast, the evidence level of mental health care provided in crisis centres, psychosocial contact points, and day care centres is poor. The major reasons for this lack of research are: heterogeneity of care models and staffing levels in the different community mental health services, lack of standardised documentation and reporting system in these services, and lack of research culture to utilise routine outcome data. The consequences of aiming at increasing the level of scientific evidence in this sphere would be to intensify funding of research projects and to implement high quality research designs such as randomised controlled trials.

Mental health care in Germany: carers' perspectives.

To assess the mental health care system in Germany from the point of view of the federal association of family carers of people with mental illness. Family carer involvement and perspective are discussed on the basis of available literature, questionnaire surveys and documents of carer organizations. At the beginning of the reform movement the views of informal carers were not discussed. Since 1985 family carers have joined forces to express their views on needs of the severely mentally ill and their carers. Their aim is to point out deficits of the care system and to work towards improved care for their relatives with mental illness and changes in the mental health care system. In the reform process informal carers should receive support and be respected as experts and partners.

German adaptation of the client sociodemographic and service receipt inventory - an instrument for the cost of mental health care

Psychiatric health services research has to consider health economic points of view more than before as a result of the present-day financial problems in our health care system. Therefore an instrument was developed, which is suitable for the evaluation of cost of mental health care in Germany. The Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory (CSSRI-EU), which was developed in the UK, was adapted to the German situation and for the first time used in a cost-effectiveness-analysis of mental health care. The adaptation process of the instrument and the practical application are explained and pros and cons considered. The German adaptation of the CSSRI-EU has proven effective in practical application. The instrument offers feasible solutions for many problems with the cost of mental health care. The instrument can be used for the calculation of direct and indirect costs and gives information about service utilization and medication profiles of the clients. The German adaptation of the CSSRI-EU is a feasible instrument for the evaluation of the cost of mental health care in Germany.