What is the impact of psychiatric decision units on mental health crisis care pathways? Protocol for an interrupted time series analysis with a synthetic control study

Background The UK mental health system is stretched to breaking point. Individuals presenting with mental health problems wait longer at the ED than those presenting with physical concerns and finding a bed when needed is difficult – 91% of psychiatric wards are operating at above the recommended occupancy rate. To address the pressure, a new type of facility – psychiatric decision units (also known as mental health decision units) – have been introduced in some areas. These are short-stay facilities, available upon referral, targeted to help individuals who may be able to avoid an inpatient admission or lengthy ED visit. To advance knowledge about the effectiveness of this service for this purpose, we will examine the effect of the service on the mental health crisis care pathway over a 4-year time period; the 2 years proceeding and following the introduction of the service. We use aggregate service level data of key indicators of the performance of this pathway. Methods Data from four mental health Trusts in England will be analysed using an interrupted time series (ITS) design with the primary outcomes of the rate of (i) ED psychiatric presentations and (ii) voluntary admissions to mental health wards. This will be supplemented with a synthetic control study with the same primary outcomes, in which a comparable control group is generated for each outcome using a donor pool of suitable National Health Service Trusts in England. The methods are well suited to an evaluation of an intervention at a service delivery level targeting population-level health outcome and the randomisation or ‘trialability’ of the intervention is limited. The synthetic control study controls for national trends over time, increasing our confidence in the results. The study has been designed and will be carried out with the involvement of service users and carers. Discussion This will be the first formal evaluation of psychiatric decision units in England. The analysis will provide estimates of the effect of the decision units on a number of important service use indicators, providing much-needed information for those designing service pathways

What is the impact of psychiatric decision units on mental health crisis care pathways? Protocol for an interrupted time series analysis with a synthetic control study

Background: The UK mental health system is stretched to breaking point. Individuals presenting with mental health problems wait longer at the ED than those presenting with physical concerns and finding a bed when needed is difficult – 91% of psychiatric wards are operating at above the recommended occupancy rate. To address the pressure, a new type of facility – psychiatric decision units (also known as mental health decision units) – have been introduced in some areas. These are short-stay facilities, available upon referral, targeted to help individuals who may be able to avoid an inpatient admission or lengthy ED visit. To advance knowledge about the effectiveness of this service for this purpose, we will examine the effect of the service on the mental health crisis care pathway over a 4-year time period; the 2 years proceeding and following the introduction of the service. We use aggregate service level data of key indicators of the performance of this pathway. Methods: Data from four mental health Trusts in England will be analysed using an interrupted time series (ITS) design with the primary outcomes of the rate of (i) ED psychiatric presentations and (ii) voluntary admissions to mental health wards. This will be supplemented with a synthetic control study with the same primary outcomes, in which a comparable control group is generated for each outcome using a donor pool of suitable National Health Service Trusts in England. The methods are well suited to an evaluation of an intervention at a service delivery level targeting population-level health outcome and the randomisation or ‘trialability’ of the intervention is limited. The synthetic control study controls for national trends over time, increasing our confidence in the results. The study has been designed and will be carried out with the involvement of service users and carers. Discussion: This will be the first formal evaluation of psychiatric decision units in England. The analysis will provide estimates of the effect of the decision units on a number of important service use indicators, providing much needed information for those designing service pathways

Service use preceding and following first referral for psychiatric emergency care at a short-stay crisis unit: A cohort study across three cities and one rural area in England

Background: Internationally, hospital-based short-stay crisis units have been introduced to provide a safe space for stabilisation and further assessment for those in psychiatric crisis. The units typically aim to reduce inpatient admissions and psychiatric presentations to emergency departments. Aims: To assess changes to service use following a service user’s first visit to a unit, characterise the population accessing these units and examine equality of access to the units. Methods: A prospective cohort study design (ISCTRN registered; 53431343) compared service use for the 9 months preceding and following a first visit to a short-stay crisis unit at three cities and one rural area in England. Included individuals first visited a unit in the 6 months between 01/September/2020 and 28/February/2021. Results: The prospective cohort included 1189 individuals aged 36 years on average, significantly younger (by 5–13 years) than the population of local service users (<.001). Seventy percent were White British and most were without a psychiatric diagnosis (55%–82% across sites). The emergency department provided the largest single source of referrals to the unit (42%), followed by the Crisis and Home Treatment Team (20%). The use of most mental health services, including all types of admission and community mental health services was increased post discharge. Social-distancing measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic were in place for slightly over 50% of the follow-up period. Comparison to a pre-COVID cohort of 934 individuals suggested that the pandemic had no effect on the majority of service use variables. Conclusions: Short-stay crisis units are typically accessed by a young population, including those who previously were unknown to mental health services, who proceed to access a broader range of mental health services following discharge

The psychiatric decision unit as an emerging model in mental health crisis care: a national survey in England

Psychiatric decision units have been developed in many countries internationally to address the pressure on inpatient services and dissatisfactory, long waits people in mental health crisis can experience in emergency departments. Research into these units lags behind their development, as they are implemented by healthcare providers to address these problems. This is the first-ever national survey to identify their prevalence, structure, activities, and contextual setting within health services, in order to provide a robust basis for future research. The response rate was high (94%), and six PDUs in England were identified. The results indicated that PDUs open 24/7, accept only voluntary patients, provide recliner chairs for sleeping rather than beds, and limit stays to 12–72 hours. PDUs are predominantly staffed by senior, qualified mental health nurses and healthcare assistants, with psychiatry input. Staff:patient ratios are high (1:2.1 during the day shift). Differences in PDU structure and activities (including referral pathway, length of stay, and staff:patient ratios) were identified, suggesting the optimal configuration for PDUs has not yet been established. Further research into the efficacy of this innovation is needed; PDUs potentially have a role in an integrated crisis care pathway which provides a variety of care options to service users

Early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health care and on people with mental health conditions: framework synthesis of international experiences and responses

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has many potential impacts on people with mental health conditions and on mental health care, including direct consequences of infection, effects of infection control measures and subsequent societal changes. We aimed to map early impacts of the pandemic on people with pre-existing mental health conditions and services they use, and to identify individual and service-level strategies adopted to manage these. METHODS: We searched for relevant material in the public domain published before 30 April 2020, including papers in scientific and professional journals, published first person accounts, media articles, and publications by governments, charities and professional associations. Search languages were English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese. Relevant content was retrieved and summarised via a rapid qualitative framework synthesis approach. RESULTS: We found 872 eligible sources from 28 countries. Most documented observations and experiences rather than reporting research data. We found many reports of deteriorations in symptoms, and of impacts of loneliness and social isolation and of lack of access to services and resources, but sometimes also of resilience, effective self-management and peer support. Immediate service challenges related to controlling infection, especially in inpatient and residential settings, and establishing remote working, especially in the community. We summarise reports of swiftly implemented adaptations and innovations, but also of pressing ethical challenges and concerns for the future. CONCLUSION: Our analysis captures the range of stakeholder perspectives and experiences publicly reported in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in several countries. We identify potential foci for service planning and research

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

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

The effect of psychiatric decision unit services on inpatient admissions and mental health presentations in emergency departments: an interrupted time series analysis from two cities and one rural area in England.

AIMS: High-quality evidence is lacking for the impact on healthcare utilisation of short-stay alternatives to psychiatric inpatient services for people experiencing acute and/or complex mental health crises (known in England as psychiatric decision units [PDUs]). We assessed the extent to which changes in psychiatric hospital and emergency department (ED) activity were explained by implementation of PDUs in England using a quasi-experimental approach. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis of weekly aggregated data pre- and post-PDU implementation in one rural and two urban sites using segmented regression, adjusting for temporal and seasonal trends. Primary outcomes were changes in the number of voluntary inpatient admissions to (acute) adult psychiatric wards and number of ED adult mental health-related attendances in the 24 months post-PDU implementation compared to that in the 24 months pre-PDU implementation. RESULTS: The two PDUs (one urban and one rural) with longer (average) stays and high staff-to-patient ratios observed post-PDU decreases in the pattern of weekly voluntary psychiatric admissions relative to pre-PDU trend (Rural: -0.45%/week, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.78%, -0.12%; Urban: -0.49%/week, 95% CI = -0.73%, -0.25%); PDU implementation in each was associated with an estimated 35-38% reduction in total voluntary admissions in the post-PDU period. The (urban) PDU with the highest throughput, lowest staff-to-patient ratio and shortest average stay observed a 20% (-20.4%, CI = -29.7%, -10.0%) level reduction in mental health-related ED attendances post-PDU, although there was little impact on long-term trend. Pooled analyses across sites indicated a significant reduction in the number of voluntary admissions following PDU implementation (-16.6%, 95% CI = -23.9%, -8.5%) but no significant (long-term) trend change (-0.20%/week, 95% CI = -0.74%, 0.34%) and no short- (-2.8%, 95% CI = -19.3%, 17.0%) or long-term (0.08%/week, 95% CI = -0.13, 0.28%) effects on mental health-related ED attendances. Findings were largely unchanged in secondary (ITS) analyses that considered the introduction of other service initiatives in the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of PDUs was associated with an immediate reduction of voluntary psychiatric inpatient admissions. The extent to which PDUs change long-term trends of voluntary psychiatric admissions or impact on psychiatric presentations at ED may be linked to their configuration. PDUs with a large capacity, short length of stay and low staff-to-patient ratio can positively impact ED mental health presentations, while PDUs with longer length of stay and higher staff-to-patient ratios have potential to reduce voluntary psychiatric admissions over an extended period. Taken as a whole, our analyses suggest that when establishing a PDU, consideration of the primary crisis-care need that underlies the creation of the unit is key

Early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health care and on people with mental health conditions: framework synthesis of international experiences and responses

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has many potential impacts on people with mental health conditions and on mental health care, including direct consequences of infection, effects of infection control measures and subsequent societal changes. We aimed to map early impacts of the pandemic on people with pre-existing mental health conditions and services they use, and to identify individual and service-level strategies adopted to manage these. METHODS: We searched for relevant material in the public domain published before 30 April 2020, including papers in scientific and professional journals, published first person accounts, media articles, and publications by governments, charities and professional associations. Search languages were English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese. Relevant content was retrieved and summarised via a rapid qualitative framework synthesis approach. RESULTS: We found 872 eligible sources from 28 countries. Most documented observations and experiences rather than reporting research data. We found many reports of deteriorations in symptoms, and of impacts of loneliness and social isolation and of lack of access to services and resources, but sometimes also of resilience, effective self-management and peer support. Immediate service challenges related to controlling infection, especially in inpatient and residential settings, and establishing remote working, especially in the community. We summarise reports of swiftly implemented adaptations and innovations, but also of pressing ethical challenges and concerns for the future. CONCLUSION: Our analysis captures the range of stakeholder perspectives and experiences publicly reported in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in several countries. We identify potential foci for service planning and research

Short-stay crisis units for mental health service users on crisis care pathways: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Internationally, an increasing proportion of Emergency Department (ED) visits are mental health related. Concurrently, psychiatric wards are often occupied above capacity. Responding to these pressures, healthcare providers have introduced short-stay, hospital-based crisis units offering a therapeutic space for stabilisation, assessment and appropriate referral. Research lags behind roll-out, and a review of the evidence is urgently needed to inform policy and further introduction of similar units. Aims This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of short-stay, hospital-based mental health crisis units. Method We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to March 2021 in this pre-registered review (PROSPERO: CRD42019151043). All designs incorporating a control or comparison group were eligible for inclusion, and all effect estimates with a comparison group were extracted and combined meta-analytically where appropriate. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and Risk of Bias in randomized trials (RoB 2). Results Data from twelve studies from six countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, UK and US) and 67,505 participants were included. Data indicated that units delivered benefits on many outcomes. Units could reduce psychiatric holds (42% after intervention compared to 49.8% before intervention; difference = 7.8%; p < 0.0001) and increase outpatient follow-up care (χ2=37.42; d.f.=1, p<0.001). Meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in length of ED stay of 164.24 minutes (95%CI -261.24 to -67.23 minutes; p<0.001), and number of inpatient admissions, odds ratio=0.55 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.68; p<0.001). Conclusions Short-stay mental health crisis units are effective for two important service-defined outcomes; reducing ED wait times and inpatient admissions. Further research should investigate impact of units on patient experience, and clinical and social outcomes