Hospital admissions for severe mental illness in England: : Changes in equity of utilisation at the small area level between 2006 and 2010

Severe Mental Illness (SMI) encompasses a range of chronic conditions including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and psychoses. Patients with SMI often require inpatient psychiatric care. Despite equity being a key objective in the English National Health Service (NHS) and in many other health care systems worldwide, little is known about the socio-economic equity of hospital care utilisation for patients with SMI and how it has changed over time. This analysis seeks to address that gap in the evidence base. We exploit a five-year (2006-2010) panel dataset of admission rates at small area level (n = 162,410). The choice of control variables was informed by a systematic literature search. To assess changes in socio-economic equity of utilisation, OLS-based standardisation was first used to conduct analysis of discrete deprivation groups. Geographical inequity was then illustrated by plotting standardised and crude admission rates at local purchaser level. Lastly, formal statistical tests for changes in socio-economic equity of utilisation were applied to a continuous measure of deprivation using pooled negative binomial regression analysis, adjusting for a range of risk factors. Our results suggest that one additional percentage point of area income deprivation is associated with a 1.5% (p < 0.001) increase in admissions for SMI after controlling for population size, age, sex, prevalence of SMI in the local population, as well as other need and supply factors. This finding is robust to sensitivity analyses, suggesting that a pro-poor inequality in utilisation exists for SMI-related inpatient services. One possible explanation is that the supply or quality of primary, community or social care for people with mental health problems is suboptimal in deprived areas. Although there is some evidence that inequity has reduced over time, the changes are small and not always robust to sensitivity analyses

Cross-national mixed methods comparative case study of recovery-focused mental health care planning and coordination in acute inpatient mental health settings (COCAPP-A)

Background: Serious concerns have been identified in relation to care planning, patient involvement and consent to treatment in mental health wards, including for those patients detained under the Mental Health Act. Further evidence is needed to develop care planning interventions that embed dignity, recovery and participation for all people using inpatient mental health care. Design: We propose to undertake a cross-national comparative study of recovery-focused mental health care planning in inpatient settings. This two-phase exploratory mixed methods study will produce theory and empirical evidence to complement that developed in our current study of community mental health services to inform a future whole systems intervention study. The study is guided by a theoretical framework emphasising the connections between different 'levels' of organisation (macro/meso/micro). In phase 1 we study the macro-level through the comparative analysis of English and Welsh policy contexts. In phase 2 concurrent quantitative and qualitative data will be collected at 6 NHS Trust/Health Board case study sites (meso-level) and within each site, a single micro-level mental health ward will be selected to provide in-depth qualitative data related to care planning processes. Phase 1: We will extend our current meta-narrative mapping review (Wong et al 2013) of English and Welsh policies and the international literature on personalised recovery-oriented care planning and coordination in community settings to include inpatient settings. We will provide a review of evidence that is useful, rigorous and relevant for service providers and decision-makers and to inform Phase 2. Phase 2: We are employing a concurrent transformative mixed methods approach with embedded case studies (Creswell 2009: 215). We will conduct six in-depth meso-level case study investigations across contrasting NHS Trusts in England (n=4) and Local Health Boards in Wales (n=2), selected to reflect variety in geography and population and include a mix of rural, urban and inner city settings providing routine inpatient care. A large sample of service users (total n=300), inpatient staff (n=300) and informal carers (n=150) will be surveyed about perceptions of acute mental health care and care planning, recovery oriented practices, therapeutic relationships and empowerment using validated questionnaires. Documents and interviews with managers, consultant psychiatrists, ward staff and informal carers (n=60) will also be generated relating to local contexts, policies and practices. In each site we will also select a single inpatient ward and conduct a series of case studies embedded within each organisational case study, to explore care planning in detail. We will invite a sample of service users (total n=36) to participate in in-depth interviews about care planning and structured narrative reviews of their care plans; undertake a structured review of anonymised care plans for a further sample (n=60) of consecutively discharged patients; and conduct observation of care planning processes (n= 18). Framework method will be employed to integrate and compare textual and statistical summaries of qualitative and quantitative analyses within each case study site, informed by the theoretical framework focused on recovery and personalisation. Armed with our set of six within-case analyses we will then conduct a cross-case analysis to draw out key findings from across all sites