Discharge planning, self-management, and community support: Strategies to avoid psychiatric rehospitalisation from a service user perspective

Abstract Objective Psychiatric rehospitalisation is often seen as a negative outcome in terms of healthcare quality and cost, as well as potentially hindering the process of recovery. The purpose of our study was to explore psychiatric rehospitalisation from a service-user perspective, paying attention to how rehospitalisation can be avoided. Method Eight focus groups, including a total of 55 mental health service users, were conducted in six European countries (Austria, Finland, Italy, Norway, Romania, and Slovenia). The results were analysed using systematic text condensation. Results All participants had been in touch with mental health services for at least one year, and had experienced more than one psychiatric hospitalisation. Participants emphasised the importance of discharge planning and psychoeducation both during and after the hospital stay, as well as the benefits of structured plans, coping strategies, self-monitoring techniques, and close contact with local community services.Social contacts and meaningful activities were also considered to be critical, as was support from peers and family members. Conclusion Efforts to avoid psychiatric rehospitalisation should include actions that support a functional day-to-day life, improve coping strategies, and build on cross-sectoral collaboration. Practice implications The study emphasises the need for psychoeducational and psychosocial interventions, starting already during the inpatient stay

Standard comparison of local mental health care systems in eight European countries

Aims. There is a need of more quantitative standardised data to compare local Mental Health Systems (MHSs) across international jurisdictions. Problems related to terminological variability and commensurability in the evaluation of services hamper like-with-like comparisons and hinder the development of work in this area. This study was aimed to provide standard assessment and comparison of MHS in selected local areas in Europe, contributing to a better understanding of MHS and related allocation of resources at local level and to lessen the scarcity in standard service comparison in Europe. This study is part of the Seventh Framework programme REFINEMENT (Research on Financing Systems’ Effect on the Quality of Mental Health Care in Europe) project. Methods. A total of eight study areas from European countries with different systems of care (Austria, England, Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Romania, Spain) were analysed using a standard open-access classification system (Description and Evaluation of Services for Long Term Care in Europe, DESDE-LTC). All publicly funded services universally accessible to adults (≥18 years) with a psychiatric disorder were coded. Care availability, diversity and capacity were compared across these eight local MHS. Results. The comparison of MHS revealed more community-oriented delivery systems in the areas of England (Hampshire) and Southern European countries (Verona – Italy and Girona – Spain). Community-oriented systems with a higher proportion of hospital care were identified in Austria (Industrieviertel) and Scandinavian countries (Sør-Trøndelag in Norway and Helsinki-Uusimaa in Finland), while Loiret (France) was considered as a predominantly hospital-based system. The MHS in Suceava (Romania) was still in transition to community care. Conclusions. There is a significant variation in care availability and capacity across MHS of local areas in Europe. This information is relevant for understanding the process of implementation of community-oriented mental health care in local areas. Standard comparison of care provision in local areas is important for context analysis and policy planning

The balance of mental health care in Europe: a comparative analysis of core health care versus the provision of other types of care for adults with mental health problems in eight study areas

Aims Although many mental health care systems provide care interventions that are not related to direct health care, little is known about the interfaces between the latter and core health care. ‘Core health care’ refers to services whose explicit aim is direct clinical treatment which is usually provided by health professionals, i.e., physicians, nurses, psychologists. ‘Other care’ is typically provided by other staff and includes accommodation, training, promotion of independence, employment support and social skills. In such a definition, ‘other care’ does not necessarily mean being funded or governed differently. The aims of the study were: (1) using a standard classification system (Description and Evaluation of Services and Directories in Europe for Long Term Care, DESDE-LTC) to identify ‘core health’ and ‘other care’ services provided to adults with mental health problems; and (2) to investigate the balance of care by analysing the types and characteristics of core health and other care services. Methods The study was conducted in eight selected local areas in eight European countries with different mental health systems. All publicly funded mental health services, regardless of the funding agency, for people over 18 years old were identified and coded. The availability, capacity and the workforce of the local mental health services were described using their functional main activity or ‘Main Types of Care’ (MTC) as the standard for international comparison, following the DESDE-LTC system. Results In these European study areas, 822 MTCs were identified as providing core health care and 448 provided other types of care. Even though one-third of mental health services in the selected study areas provided interventions that were coded as ‘other care’, significant variation was found in the typology and characteristics of these services across the eight study areas. Conclusions The functional distinction between core health and other care overcomes the traditional division between ‘health’ and ‘social’ sectors based on governance and funding. The overall balance between core health and other care services varied significantly across the European sites. Mental health systems cannot be understood or planned without taking into account the availability and capacity of all services specifically available for this target population, including those outside the health sector

The balance of adult mental health care: provision of core health versus other types of care in eight European countries

Aims. Although many mental health care systems provide care interventions that are not related to direct health care, little is known about the interfaces between the latter and core health care. 'Core health care' refers to services whose explicit aim is direct clinical treatment which is usually provided by health professionals, i.e., physicians, nurses, psychologists. 'Other care' is typically provided by other staff and includes accommodation, training, promotion of independence, employment support and social skills. In such a definition, 'other care' does not necessarily mean being funded or governed differently. The aims of the study were: (1) using a standard classification system (Description and Evaluation of Services and Directories in Europe for Long Term Care, DESDE-LTC) to identify 'core health' and 'other care' services provided to adults with mental health problems; and (2) to investigate the balance of care by analysing the types and characteristics of core health and other care services. Methods. The study was conducted in eight selected local areas in eight European countries with different mental health systems. All publicly funded mental health services, regardless of the funding agency, for people over 18 years old were identified and coded. The availability, capacity and the workforce of the local mental health services were described using their functional main activity or `Main Types of Care' (MTC) as the standard for international comparison, following the DESDE-LTC system. Results. In these European study areas, 822 MTCs were identified as providing core health care and 448 provided other types of care. Even though one-third of mental health services in the selected study areas provided interventions that were coded as `other care', significant variation was found in the typology and characteristics of these services across the eight study areas. Conclusions. The functional distinction between core health and other care overcomes the traditional division between `health' and `social' sectors based on governance and funding. The overall balance between core health and other care services varied significantly across the European sites. Mental health systems cannot be understood or planned without taking into account the availability and capacity of all services specifically available for this target population, including those outside the health sector

Factors associated with quality of services for marginalized groups with mental health problems in 14 European countries

This research was financially supported by DG-Sanco (contract: 800197; 2007-2010). The authors would like to thank all of the professionals and services who participated in the PROMO assessment of services. A PhD grant from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia–Portugal (SFRH/BD/66388/2009) to the first author is acknowledged

Mental health care for irregular migrants in Europe: Barriers and how they are overcome

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Good practice in health care for migrants: views and experiences of care professionals in 16 European countries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health services across Europe provide health care for migrant patients every day. However, little systematic research has explored the views and experiences of health care professionals in different European countries. The aim of this study was to assess the difficulties professionals experience in their service when providing such care and what they consider constitutes good practice to overcome these problems or limit their negative impact on the quality of care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Structured interviews with open questions and case vignettes were conducted with health care professionals working in areas with high proportion of migrant populations in 16 countries. In each country, professionals in nine primary care practices, three accident and emergency hospital departments, and three community mental health services (total sample = 240) were interviewed about their views and experiences in providing care for migrant patients, i.e. from first generation immigrant populations. Answers were analysed using thematic content analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eight types of problems and seven components of good practice were identified representing all statements in the interviews. The eight problems were: language barriers, difficulties in arranging care for migrants without health care coverage, social deprivation and traumatic experiences, lack of familiarity with the health care system, cultural differences, different understandings of illness and treatment, negative attitudes among staff and patients, and lack of access to medical history. The components of good practice to overcome these problems or limit their impact were: organisational flexibility with sufficient time and resources, good interpreting services, working with families and social services, cultural awareness of staff, educational programmes and information material for migrants, positive and stable relationships with staff, and clear guidelines on the care entitlements of different migrant groups. Problems and good care components were similar across the three types of services.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Health care professionals in different services experience similar difficulties when providing care to migrants. They also have relatively consistent views on what constitutes good practice. The degree to which these components already are part of routine practice varies. Implementing good practice requires sufficient resources and organisational flexibility, positive attitudes, training for staff and the provision of information.</p

Standard comparison of local mental health care systems in eight European countries

There is a need of more quantitative standardised data to compare local Mental Health Systems (MHSs) across international jurisdictions. Problems related to terminological variability and commensurability in the evaluation of services hamper like-with-like comparisons and hinder the development of work in this area. This study was aimed to provide standard assessment and comparison of MHS in selected local areas in Europe, contributing to a better understanding of MHS and related allocation of resources at local level and to lessen the scarcity in standard service comparison in Europe. This study is part of the Seventh Framework programme REFINEMENT (Research on Financing Systems’ Effect on the Quality of Mental Health Care in Europe) project.The REFINEMENT project has received funding from the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme (7FP) and lies within the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’ – Theme ‘Health’: HEALTH.2010.3.2–1: Financing systems’ effect on quality of health care. Duration: 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013. 7FP. Project number: 261459

Health care for irregular migrants: pragmatism across Europe. A qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health services in Europe face the challenge of delivering care to a heterogeneous group of irregular migrants (IM). There is little empirical evidence on how health professionals cope with this challenge. This study explores the experiences of health professionals providing care to IM in three types of health care service across 16 European countries.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health professionals in 144 primary care services, 48 mental health services, and 48 Accident & Emergency departments (total n = 240). Although legal health care entitlement for IM varies across countries, health professionals reported facing similar issues when caring for IM. These issues include access problems, limited communication, and associated legal complications. Differences in the experiences with IM across the three types of services were also explored. Respondents from Accident & Emergency departments reported less of a difference between the care for IM patients and patients in a regular situation than did respondents from primary care and mental health services. Primary care services and mental health services were more concerned with language barriers than Accident & Emergency departments. Notifying the authorities was an uncommon practice, even in countries where health professionals are required to do this.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The needs of IM patients and the values of the staff appear to be as important as the national legal framework, with staff in different European countries adopting a similar pragmatic approach to delivering health care to IM. While legislation might help to improve health care for IM, more appropriate organisation and local flexibility are equally important, especially for improving access and care pathways.</p

Mental health service users’ experiences of psychiatric re-hospitalisation - an explorative focus group study in six European countries

Abstract Background Psychiatric re-hospitalisation is considered costly and disruptive to individuals. The perspective of the mental health service user is largely unexplored in literature. The purpose of our study was to explore service users’ experiences of psychiatric re-hospitalisation across six countries in Europe. Method Eight focus groups were conducted in Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Italy, Austria and Norway. Results A total of 55 service users participated in the study. All participants had been in receipt of mental health services for at least 1 year, and had experienced more than one psychiatric hospitalisation. The experience of re-hospitalisation was considered: (1) less traumatising than the first hospitalisation, (2) to be necessary, and a relief, (3) occurring by default and without progress, (4) part of the recovery process. Conclusions Psychiatric re-hospitalisation was considered inevitable by the study participants, in both positive and negative terms. Striking similarities in service user experiences were found across all of the six countries, the first experience of psychiatric hospitalisation emerging as especially significant. Findings indicate the need for further action in order to develop more recovery and person-centred approaches within hospital care. For psychiatric inpatient care to be a positive part of the recovery process, further knowledge on what therapeutic action during the hospital stay would be beneficial, such as therapy, activities and integration with other services