Acute day units in non-residential settings for people in mental health crisis: the AD-CARE mixed-methods study

D. Osborn, Danielle Lamb, A. Canaway, Michael Davidson, G. Favarato, V. Pinfold, Terry Harper, Sonia Johnson, Hameed Khan, J. Kirkbride, B. Lloyd-Evans, J. Madan, Farhana Mann, L. Marston, Adele McKay, N. Morant, Debra Smith, T. Steare, Jane Wackett, S. Weich
{"title":"Acute day units in non-residential settings for people in mental health crisis: the AD-CARE mixed-methods study","authors":"D. Osborn, Danielle Lamb, A. Canaway, Michael Davidson, G. Favarato, V. Pinfold, Terry Harper, Sonia Johnson, Hameed Khan, J. Kirkbride, B. Lloyd-Evans, J. Madan, Farhana Mann, L. Marston, Adele McKay, N. Morant, Debra Smith, T. Steare, Jane Wackett, S. Weich","doi":"10.3310/hsdr09180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n For people in mental health crisis, acute day units provide daily structured sessions and peer support in non-residential settings as an alternative to crisis resolution teams.\n \n \n \n To investigate the provision, effectiveness, intervention acceptability and re-admission rates of acute day units.\n \n \n \n Work package 1 – mapping and national questionnaire survey of acute day units. Work package 2.1 – cohort study comparing outcomes during a 6-month period between acute day unit and crisis resolution team participants. Work package 2.2 – qualitative interviews with staff and service users of acute day units. Work package 3 – a cohort study within the Mental Health Minimum Data Set exploring re-admissions to acute care over 6 months. A patient and public involvement group supported the study throughout.\n \n \n \n Work package 1 – all non-residential acute day units (NHS and voluntary sector) in England. Work packages 2.1 and 2.2 – four NHS trusts with staff, service users and carers in acute day units and crisis resolution teams. Work package 3 – all individuals using mental health NHS trusts in England.\n \n \n \n Work package 1 – we identified 27 acute day units in 17 out of 58 trusts. Acute day units are typically available on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., providing a wide range of interventions and a multidisciplinary team, including clinicians, and having an average attendance of 5 weeks. Work package 2.1 – we recruited 744 participants (acute day units, n = 431; crisis resolution teams, n = 312). In the primary analysis, 21% of acute day unit participants (vs. 23% of crisis resolution team participants) were re-admitted to acute mental health services over 6 months. There was no statistically significant difference in the fully adjusted model (acute day unit hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.14; p = 0.20), with highly heterogeneous results between trusts. Acute day unit participants had higher satisfaction and well-being scores and lower depression scores than crisis resolution team participants. The health economics analysis found no difference in resource use or cost between the acute day unit and crisis resolution team groups in the fully adjusted analysis. Work package 2.2 – 36 people were interviewed (acute day unit staff, n = 12; service users, n = 21; carers, n = 3). There was an overwhelming consensus that acute day units are highly valued. Service users found the high amount of contact time and staff continuity, peer support and structure provided by acute day units particularly beneficial. Staff also valued providing continuity, building strong therapeutic relationships and providing a variety of flexible, personalised support. Work package 3 – of 231,998 individuals discharged from acute care (crisis resolution team, acute day unit or inpatient ward), 21.4% were re-admitted for acute treatment within 6 months, with women, single people, people of mixed or black ethnicity, those living in more deprived areas and those in the severe psychosis care cluster being more likely to be re-admitted. Little variation in re-admissions was explained at the trust level, or between trusts with and trusts without acute day units (adjusted odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.15).\n \n \n \n In work package 1, some of the information is likely to be incomplete as a result of trusts’ self-reporting. There may have been recruitment bias in work packages 2.1 and 2.2. Part of the health economics analysis relied on clinical Health of the Nations Outcome Scale ratings. The Mental Health Minimum Data Set did not contain a variable identifying acute day units, and some covariates had a considerable number of missing data.\n \n \n \n Acute day units are not provided routinely in the NHS but are highly valued by staff and service users, giving better outcomes in terms of satisfaction, well-being and depression than, and no significant differences in risk of re-admission or increased costs from, crisis resolution teams. Future work should investigate wider health and care system structures and the place of acute day units within them; the development of a model of best practice for acute day units; and staff turnover and well-being (including the impacts of these on care).\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Delivery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr09180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

For people in mental health crisis, acute day units provide daily structured sessions and peer support in non-residential settings as an alternative to crisis resolution teams. To investigate the provision, effectiveness, intervention acceptability and re-admission rates of acute day units. Work package 1 – mapping and national questionnaire survey of acute day units. Work package 2.1 – cohort study comparing outcomes during a 6-month period between acute day unit and crisis resolution team participants. Work package 2.2 – qualitative interviews with staff and service users of acute day units. Work package 3 – a cohort study within the Mental Health Minimum Data Set exploring re-admissions to acute care over 6 months. A patient and public involvement group supported the study throughout. Work package 1 – all non-residential acute day units (NHS and voluntary sector) in England. Work packages 2.1 and 2.2 – four NHS trusts with staff, service users and carers in acute day units and crisis resolution teams. Work package 3 – all individuals using mental health NHS trusts in England. Work package 1 – we identified 27 acute day units in 17 out of 58 trusts. Acute day units are typically available on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., providing a wide range of interventions and a multidisciplinary team, including clinicians, and having an average attendance of 5 weeks. Work package 2.1 – we recruited 744 participants (acute day units, n = 431; crisis resolution teams, n = 312). In the primary analysis, 21% of acute day unit participants (vs. 23% of crisis resolution team participants) were re-admitted to acute mental health services over 6 months. There was no statistically significant difference in the fully adjusted model (acute day unit hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.14; p = 0.20), with highly heterogeneous results between trusts. Acute day unit participants had higher satisfaction and well-being scores and lower depression scores than crisis resolution team participants. The health economics analysis found no difference in resource use or cost between the acute day unit and crisis resolution team groups in the fully adjusted analysis. Work package 2.2 – 36 people were interviewed (acute day unit staff, n = 12; service users, n = 21; carers, n = 3). There was an overwhelming consensus that acute day units are highly valued. Service users found the high amount of contact time and staff continuity, peer support and structure provided by acute day units particularly beneficial. Staff also valued providing continuity, building strong therapeutic relationships and providing a variety of flexible, personalised support. Work package 3 – of 231,998 individuals discharged from acute care (crisis resolution team, acute day unit or inpatient ward), 21.4% were re-admitted for acute treatment within 6 months, with women, single people, people of mixed or black ethnicity, those living in more deprived areas and those in the severe psychosis care cluster being more likely to be re-admitted. Little variation in re-admissions was explained at the trust level, or between trusts with and trusts without acute day units (adjusted odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.15). In work package 1, some of the information is likely to be incomplete as a result of trusts’ self-reporting. There may have been recruitment bias in work packages 2.1 and 2.2. Part of the health economics analysis relied on clinical Health of the Nations Outcome Scale ratings. The Mental Health Minimum Data Set did not contain a variable identifying acute day units, and some covariates had a considerable number of missing data. Acute day units are not provided routinely in the NHS but are highly valued by staff and service users, giving better outcomes in terms of satisfaction, well-being and depression than, and no significant differences in risk of re-admission or increased costs from, crisis resolution teams. Future work should investigate wider health and care system structures and the place of acute day units within them; the development of a model of best practice for acute day units; and staff turnover and well-being (including the impacts of these on care). This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
精神健康危机人群非居住环境中的急性日间单元:AD-CARE混合方法研究
对于处于精神健康危机中的人,急性日间病房在非住宅环境中提供每日结构化会议和同伴支持,作为危机解决小组的替代方案。目的:探讨急性日间病房的供应、有效性、干预的可接受性和再入院率。工作包1 -急性日间病房的制图和全国问卷调查。工作包2.1 -队列研究比较急性日间病房和危机解决小组参与者6个月期间的结果。工作包2.2 -与急症日间单位的工作人员和服务使用者进行定性访谈。工作包3 -心理健康最小数据集中的队列研究,探索6个月内再次入院的急性护理。一个病人和公众参与小组自始至终支持这项研究。工作包1 -英格兰所有非住宅急症日间病房(NHS和志愿部门)。工作包2.1和2.2——四个国民保健服务信托基金,在急症日间病房和危机解决小组中有工作人员、服务使用者和护理人员。工作包3——在英格兰使用国民保健服务信托的所有个人。工作包1 -我们在58个信托机构中的17个确定了27个急性日间单位。急性日间病房通常在工作日上午10点至下午4点开放,提供广泛的干预措施和包括临床医生在内的多学科团队,平均就诊时间为5周。工作包2.1 -我们招募了744名参与者(急性日间病房,n = 431;危机解决团队,n = 312)。在初步分析中,21%的急性日间病房参与者(相对于23%的危机解决小组参与者)在6个月内再次接受急性心理健康服务。完全校正模型的差异无统计学意义(急性日单位风险比0.78,95%可信区间0.54 ~ 1.14;P = 0.20),信托之间的结果高度异质性。急性日间单位的参与者比危机解决小组的参与者有更高的满意度和幸福感得分,更低的抑郁得分。卫生经济学分析发现,在完全调整后的分析中,急性日间病房和危机解决小组之间的资源使用或成本没有差异。工作包2.2 -访谈了36人(急症日间单位工作人员,n = 12;业务用户,n = 21;护理人员,n = 3)。有一个压倒性的共识,急性日单位是高度重视。服务使用者发现急症日间单位提供的联络时间长、工作人员连续性强、同侪支援和结构特别有益。工作人员还重视提供连续性,建立牢固的治疗关系,并提供各种灵活的个性化支持。工作包3——在急性护理(危机解决小组、急性日间病房或住院病房)出院的231,998人中,21.4%的人在6个月内再次入院接受急性治疗,其中妇女、单身人士、混血儿或黑人、生活在较贫困地区的人以及严重精神病护理组的人更有可能再次入院。在信托水平上,或者在有和没有急性日单位的信托之间,再入院的差异很小(调整优势比0.96,95%置信区间0.80至1.15)。在工作包1中,由于信托机构的自我报告,一些信息可能不完整。在工作包2.1和2.2中可能存在招聘偏见。部分健康经济学分析依赖于国民临床健康结果量表评分。精神健康最小数据集不包含识别急性日单位的变量,并且一些协变量有相当数量的缺失数据。急性日间病房在NHS中并不常规提供,但受到员工和服务用户的高度重视,在满意度、幸福感和抑郁方面的结果优于危机解决团队,并且在再次入院的风险或增加的成本方面没有显著差异。今后的工作应调查更广泛的卫生和保健系统结构以及急症日间病房在其中的地位;急性日间单位最佳实践模式的发展;以及员工流动和幸福感(包括这些对护理的影响)。该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)卫生服务和交付研究方案资助,将全文发表在《卫生服务和交付研究》上;第九卷,第十八期请参阅NIHR期刊图书馆网站了解更多项目信息。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信