Evaluating mental health decision units in acute care pathways (DECISION): a quasi-experimental, qualitative and health economic evaluation.

Steve Gillard, Katie Anderson, Geraldine Clarke, Chloe Crowe, Lucy Goldsmith, Heather Jarman, Sonia Johnson, Jo Lomani, David McDaid, Paris Pariza, A-La Park, Jared Smith, Kati Turner, Heather Yoeli
{"title":"Evaluating mental health decision units in acute care pathways (DECISION): a quasi-experimental, qualitative and health economic evaluation.","authors":"Steve Gillard, Katie Anderson, Geraldine Clarke, Chloe Crowe, Lucy Goldsmith, Heather Jarman, Sonia Johnson, Jo Lomani, David McDaid, Paris Pariza, A-La Park, Jared Smith, Kati Turner, Heather Yoeli","doi":"10.3310/PBSM2274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People experiencing mental health crises in the community often present to emergency departments and are admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Because of the demands on emergency department and inpatient care, psychiatric decision units have emerged to provide a more suitable environment for assessment and signposting to appropriate care.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The study aimed to ascertain the structure and activities of psychiatric decision units in England and to provide an evidence base for their effectiveness, costs and benefits, and optimal configuration.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a mixed-methods study comprising survey, systematic review, interrupted time series, synthetic control study, cohort study, qualitative interview study and health economic evaluation, using a critical interpretive synthesis approach.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The study took place in four mental health National Health Service trusts with psychiatric decision units, and six acute hospital National Health Service trusts where emergency departments referred to psychiatric decision units in each mental health trust.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Participants in the cohort study (<i>n</i> = 2110) were first-time referrals to psychiatric decision units for two 5-month periods from 1 October 2018 and 1 October 2019, respectively. Participants in the qualitative study were first-time referrals to psychiatric decision units recruited within 1 month of discharge (<i>n</i> = 39), members of psychiatric decision unit clinical teams (<i>n</i> = 15) and clinicians referring to psychiatric decision units (<i>n</i> = 19).</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Primary mental health outcome in the interrupted time series and cohort study was informal psychiatric hospital admission, and in the synthetic control any psychiatric hospital admission; primary emergency department outcome in the interrupted time series and synthetic control was mental health attendance at emergency department. Data for the interrupted time series and cohort study were extracted from electronic patient record in mental health and acute trusts; data for the synthetic control study were obtained through NHS Digital from Hospital Episode Statistics admitted patient care for psychiatric admissions and Hospital Episode Statistics Accident and Emergency for emergency department attendances. The health economic evaluation used data from all studies. Relevant databases were searched for controlled or comparison group studies of hospital-based mental health assessments permitting overnight stays of a maximum of 1 week that measured adult acute psychiatric admissions and/or mental health presentations at emergency department. Selection, data extraction and quality rating of studies were double assessed. Narrative synthesis of included studies was undertaken and meta-analyses were performed where sufficient studies reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Psychiatric decision units have the potential to reduce informal psychiatric admissions, mental health presentations and wait times at emergency department. Cost savings are largely marginal and do not offset the cost of units. First-time referrals to psychiatric decision units use more inpatient and community care and less emergency department-based liaison psychiatry in the months following the first visit. Psychiatric decision units work best when configured to reduce either informal psychiatric admissions (longer length of stay, higher staff-to-patient ratio, use of psychosocial interventions), resulting in improved quality of crisis care or demand on the emergency department (higher capacity, shorter length of stay). To function well, psychiatric decision units should be integrated into the crisis care pathway alongside a range of community-based support.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The availability and quality of data imposed limitations on the reliability of some analyses.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Psychiatric decision units should not be commissioned with an expectation of short-term financial return on investment but, if appropriately configured, they can provide better quality of care for people in crisis who would not benefit from acute admission or reduce pressure on emergency department.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>The systematic review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews as CRD42019151043.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/49/70) and is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 11, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/PBSM2274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: People experiencing mental health crises in the community often present to emergency departments and are admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Because of the demands on emergency department and inpatient care, psychiatric decision units have emerged to provide a more suitable environment for assessment and signposting to appropriate care.

Objectives: The study aimed to ascertain the structure and activities of psychiatric decision units in England and to provide an evidence base for their effectiveness, costs and benefits, and optimal configuration.

Design: This was a mixed-methods study comprising survey, systematic review, interrupted time series, synthetic control study, cohort study, qualitative interview study and health economic evaluation, using a critical interpretive synthesis approach.

Setting: The study took place in four mental health National Health Service trusts with psychiatric decision units, and six acute hospital National Health Service trusts where emergency departments referred to psychiatric decision units in each mental health trust.

Participants: Participants in the cohort study (n = 2110) were first-time referrals to psychiatric decision units for two 5-month periods from 1 October 2018 and 1 October 2019, respectively. Participants in the qualitative study were first-time referrals to psychiatric decision units recruited within 1 month of discharge (n = 39), members of psychiatric decision unit clinical teams (n = 15) and clinicians referring to psychiatric decision units (n = 19).

Outcomes: Primary mental health outcome in the interrupted time series and cohort study was informal psychiatric hospital admission, and in the synthetic control any psychiatric hospital admission; primary emergency department outcome in the interrupted time series and synthetic control was mental health attendance at emergency department. Data for the interrupted time series and cohort study were extracted from electronic patient record in mental health and acute trusts; data for the synthetic control study were obtained through NHS Digital from Hospital Episode Statistics admitted patient care for psychiatric admissions and Hospital Episode Statistics Accident and Emergency for emergency department attendances. The health economic evaluation used data from all studies. Relevant databases were searched for controlled or comparison group studies of hospital-based mental health assessments permitting overnight stays of a maximum of 1 week that measured adult acute psychiatric admissions and/or mental health presentations at emergency department. Selection, data extraction and quality rating of studies were double assessed. Narrative synthesis of included studies was undertaken and meta-analyses were performed where sufficient studies reported outcomes.

Results: Psychiatric decision units have the potential to reduce informal psychiatric admissions, mental health presentations and wait times at emergency department. Cost savings are largely marginal and do not offset the cost of units. First-time referrals to psychiatric decision units use more inpatient and community care and less emergency department-based liaison psychiatry in the months following the first visit. Psychiatric decision units work best when configured to reduce either informal psychiatric admissions (longer length of stay, higher staff-to-patient ratio, use of psychosocial interventions), resulting in improved quality of crisis care or demand on the emergency department (higher capacity, shorter length of stay). To function well, psychiatric decision units should be integrated into the crisis care pathway alongside a range of community-based support.

Limitations: The availability and quality of data imposed limitations on the reliability of some analyses.

Future work: Psychiatric decision units should not be commissioned with an expectation of short-term financial return on investment but, if appropriately configured, they can provide better quality of care for people in crisis who would not benefit from acute admission or reduce pressure on emergency department.

Study registration: The systematic review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews as CRD42019151043.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/49/70) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估急症护理路径中的心理健康决策单元(DECISION):准实验、定性和健康经济评估。
背景:在社区中遇到精神健康危机的人通常会到急诊科就诊,然后被送进精神病医院。由于对急诊科和住院病人护理的需求,精神科决策单元应运而生,为评估和引导病人接受适当的护理提供了更合适的环境:研究旨在确定英格兰精神科决策室的结构和活动,并为其有效性、成本和收益以及最佳配置提供证据基础:设计:这是一项混合方法研究,包括调查、系统综述、间断时间序列、合成对照研究、队列研究、定性访谈研究和卫生经济评估,采用批判性解释综合方法:研究地点:四个设有精神科决策部门的国家医疗卫生服务托管机构,以及六个国家医疗卫生服务托管机构的急诊科转诊至每个精神科托管机构的精神科决策部门:队列研究的参与者(n = 2110)是分别从 2018 年 10 月 1 日和 2019 年 10 月 1 日两个 5 个月期间首次转诊至精神科决策部门的患者。定性研究的参与者为出院后1个月内首次转诊至精神科决策部门的患者(n = 39)、精神科决策部门临床团队成员(n = 15)和转诊至精神科决策部门的临床医生(n = 19):间断时间序列研究和队列研究的主要精神健康结果为非正式精神病院入院,合成对照研究的主要精神健康结果为任何精神病院入院;间断时间序列研究和合成对照研究的主要急诊室结果为急诊室精神健康就诊。间断时间序列和队列研究的数据取自精神卫生和急诊托管机构的电子病历;合成对照研究的数据通过 NHS Digital 从医院事件统计入院患者护理中获取,用于精神病入院治疗,并从医院事件统计事故和急诊中获取,用于急诊就诊。健康经济评估使用了所有研究的数据。我们在相关数据库中搜索了以医院为基础的精神健康评估对照组或对比组研究,这些研究允许最长 1 周的过夜停留,并测量了成人急性精神病入院情况和/或急诊科的精神健康就诊情况。研究的筛选、数据提取和质量评级均经过双重评估。对纳入的研究进行叙述性综合,并在有足够研究报告结果的情况下进行荟萃分析:结果:精神科决策单元有可能减少非正规精神科入院人数、精神疾病就诊人数和急诊科等候时间。节省的费用基本上是微不足道的,无法抵消单位的成本。首次转诊至精神科决策单元的患者在首次就诊后的几个月内会使用更多的住院和社区护理服务,而较少使用急诊科的联络精神科服务。精神科决策单元的最佳配置是减少非正式的精神科入院(住院时间更长、工作人员与患者的比例更高、使用社会心理干预),从而提高危机护理的质量,或减少对急诊科的需求(容量更大、住院时间更短)。要想发挥良好的作用,精神科决策室应与一系列社区支持一起被纳入危机护理路径:局限性:数据的可用性和质量限制了某些分析的可靠性:未来的工作:精神科决策单元的设立不应以短期投资回报为目的,但如果配置得当,它们可以为无法从急性入院治疗中获益的危机患者提供更高质量的护理,或减轻急诊科的压力:该系统性综述已在国际系统性综述前瞻性注册中心(International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews)注册,编号为CRD42019151043:该奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究项目(NIHR奖项编号:17/49/70)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第11卷第25期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请访问 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review. Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study. Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation. Safer and more efficient vital signs monitoring protocols to identify the deteriorating patients in the general hospital ward: an observational study. Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1