Individuals with severe mental disorder (SMD) have a higher risk of somatic comorbidity and mortality than the rest of the population.

To assess whether individuals with SMD had a higher risk of death associated with a COVID-19 infection (COVID-19 associated death) than individuals without SMD.

Exploratory analysis with a cross-sectional design in the framework of a population-based register study covering the entire Swedish population. The Swedish Board for Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) provided anonymised tabulated summary data for further analysis. We compared numbers of COVID-19 associated death in individuals with SMD (cases) and without SMD (controls). We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for the whole sample and by age group and four potential risk factors, namely diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, chronic lung disease.

The sample comprised of 7,923,859 individuals, 103,999 with SMD and 7,819,860 controls. There were 130 (0.1%) COVID-19 associated deaths in the SMD group and 4945 (0.06%) in the control group, corresponding to an OR of 1.98 (CI 1.66-2.35; p < 0.001). The odds were fourfold in the age group between 60 and 79 years. Cardiovascular diseases increased the odds by 50%. Individuals with SMD without any of the risk factors under study had three-folds odds of COVID-19 associated death.

Our preliminary results suggest that individuals with SMD are a further group at increased risk of COVID-19 associated death. The factors contributing to this increased mortality risk require clarification.

Ursula Werneke has received funding for educational activities on behalf of Norrbotten Region (Masterclass Psychiatry Programme 2014-2018 and EAPM 2016, Luleå, Sweden): Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Otsuka/Lundbeck, Servier, Shire and Sunovi

Recent evidence has questioned modern psychiatric clinical practice, specifically the prescribing of “atypical” antipsychotics. Our Pan-European Research Group wished to ascertain clinical practice amongst European trainees, which treatments trainees would desire for themselves, and factors influencing this.

A semi-structured survey was constructed from prior literature, piloted, and a homogenous sample size of at least 50 was agreed upon from each country, with 50% minimum response rate. It was distributed via web-link, with questions on preference of antipsychotic for patients in given scenarios, and factors influencing choice. Physicians were asked for their preference should they develop psychosis.

1. i) Treatment choice of antipsychotic for patients

93% (n=600) of respondents chose to prescribe “atypical” antipsychotics (excluding Clozapine), 6% (n=42) choosing “typical” antipsychotics, 1% (n=6) choosing Clozapine as first-line therapy.

1. ii) Treatment choice if trainees developed psychosis

89% (n=530) of responders chose to prescribe “atypical” antipsychotics (excluding Clozapine), 7% (n=40) choosing “typical” antipsychotics, 4% (n=23) choosing Clozapine as first-line therapy.

1. iii) Factors influencing choice

These mapped onto three domains: cost, efficacy and side-effect profile (less than 5% other reasons). 79% (n=458) of those who responded felt efficacy most important, 46% (n=270) felt side-effect profile most important and 3% (n=16) considered cost of paramount importance.

38% (n=272) of those who responded to the survey stated that the CATIE trial had influenced their decision-making.

Psychiatry trainees’ choice of antipsychotic medication for both patients and themselves is based on perceived benefits, as opposed to evidence base and recent literature.

Guidelines produced for management of Bipolar Disorder illustrate change in evidence-base for treatment of acute and maintenance phases of illness. Our Pan-European Research Group assessed clinical practice and desired treatments amongst amongst Psychiatry trainees.

A semi-structured survey was piloted, and homogenous sample size (at least 50) agreed upon from each country, with 50% minimum response rate. It was distributed via web-link, questioning preference of mood stabiliser for patients, trainees themselves and factors influencing choice.

Tables 1 summarise choices.

Factors influencing decision-making mapped onto cost, efficacy and side-effect profile (less than 4% other reasons). 66% (n=538) of respondents felt efficacy most important, 25% (n=202) felt side-effect profile most important and 3% (n=24) considered cost of most importance.

No clear difference exists in choice of mood stabiliser for European trainees and their patients, and decisions based on perceived efficacy are generally in keeping with established guidelines.

There is growing concern about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on psychiatric teaching and psychiatric professionalism as a whole. As a consequence, several national and international medical and psychiatric associations have issued guidelines to regulate the interactions between physicians and industry.

The EFPT-PRIRS study aims to provide the lacking data on the extent and nature of these interactions among psychiatric trainees across Europe.

Study objectives were determined by the EFPT research group (EFPT-RG), after discussion with national and international experts. A survey was then devised compiling previously published questionnaires extending them by questions with specific relevance to psychiatric trainees. The resulting questionnaire was piloted amongst members of the EFPT-RG, modified accordingly and subsequently distributed to the national study coordinators. All 24 EFPT member countries were invited to participate in the study and data collection is currently ongoing.

Preliminary analysis reveals the vast differences in industry - trainee relationships across European countries as well as major differences in personal attitudes towards these interactions.

EFPT-PRIRS will potentially have an impact on the regulation of the interactions between the pharmaceutical industry and psychiatric trainees.

The Young Psychiatrists' Network (YPN) is an international group of young psychiatrists (YP) from Eastern and Western European countries organizing annual meetings to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and experience between YPs from different backgrounds, promote networking and development of leadership skills.

To evaluate the YPN Meetings in Eastern Europe.

The 3rd YPN Meeting, was held in September 2012 in Minsk, Belarus. 74 YPs from 21 countries participated. At the end of the conference anonymous evaluation surveys were distributed.

52 participants from 14 countries returned the survey (70%). In contrast to the previous meeting in Riga where ⅔ participants received grants, in Minsk all participants attended self-funded. It was the first YPN meeting for 60% of them. The meeting was evaluated positively by all participants and 44% expressed a wish to actively organize a consecutive meeting. Majority of participants thought that the meeting would have positive influence on their professional career (81%) and personal development (88%). Some questions addressed 21 participants who had attended the previous meeting in order to measure effects on YPs' activities in the past year. ⅓ of participants stated that the meeting changed their clinical practice, 90% reported indirect and 86% direct personal contact with international colleagues after the meeting. As the result of previous meeting 81% of them became involved in national and 62% in international trainee/YPs organizations. 52% established international research contacts.

YPN Meetings seem to be valuable, and have major impact on personal growth, networking and collaborative research.