Outcomes of referrals over a six-month period to a mental health gateway team

Measuring the Effect of the Early assessment Team (MEET) for patients referred to outpatient mental health care: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Referrals to specialised mental health care (such as community mental health centres; CMHC) have increased over the last two decades. Patients often have multifaceted problems, which cannot only be solved by such care. Resources are limited, and triaging is challenging. A novel method which approaches patients early and individually upon referral to a CMHC-possibly with a brief intervention-is an Early assessment Team (EaT). In an EaT, two therapists meet the patient early in the process and seek to solve the present problem, often involving community services, primary health care, etc.; attention is paid to symptoms and functional strife, rather than diagnoses. This is in contrast to treatment as usual (TAU), where the patient (after being on a waiting list) meets one therapist, who focuses on history and situation to assign a diagnosis and eventually start a longitudinal treatment. The aim of this study is to describe and compare EaT and TAU regarding such outcomes as work and social adjustment, mental health, quality of life, use of health services, and patient satisfaction. The primary outcome is a change in perceived function from baseline to 12-month follow-up, measured by the Work and Social Adjustment Scale.

METHOD

Patients (18 years and above; n = 588) referred to outpatient health care at a CMHC are randomised to EaT or TAU. Measures (patient self-reports and clinician reports, patients' records, and register data) are collected at baseline, after the first and last meeting, and at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 months after inclusion. Some participants will be invited to participate in qualitative interviews.

TRIAL DESIGN

The study is a single-centre, non-blinded, RCT with two conditions involving a longitudinal and mixed design (quantitative and qualitative data).

DISCUSSION

This study will examine an intervention designed to determine early on which patients will benefit from parallel or other measures than assessment and treatment in CMHC and whether these will facilitate their recovery. Findings may potentially contribute to the development of the organisation of mental health services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05087446. Registered on 21 October 2021.

Understanding new models of integrated care in developed countries: a systematic review

Background

The NHS has been challenged to adopt new integrated models of service delivery that are tailored to local populations. Evidence from the international literature is needed to support the development and implementation of these new models of care.

Objectives

The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of international evidence to enhance understanding of the mechanisms whereby new models of service delivery have an impact on health-care outcomes.

Design

The study combined rigorous and systematic methods for identification of literature, together with innovative methods for synthesis and presentation of findings.

Setting

Any setting.

Participants

Patients receiving a health-care service and/or staff delivering services.

Interventions

Changes to service delivery that increase integration and co-ordination of health and health-related services.

Main outcome measures

Outcomes related to the delivery of services, including the views and perceptions of patients/service users and staff.

Study design

Empirical work of a quantitative or qualitative design.

Data sources

We searched electronic databases (between October 2016 and March 2017) for research published from 2006 onwards in databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index and The Cochrane Library. We also searched relevant websites, screened reference lists and citation searched on a previous review.

Review methods

The identified evidence was synthesised in three ways. First, data from included studies were used to develop an evidence-based logic model, and a narrative summary reports the elements of the pathway. Second, we examined the strength of evidence underpinning reported outcomes and impacts using a comparative four-item rating system. Third, we developed an applicability framework to further scrutinise and characterise the evidence.

Results

We included 267 studies in the review. The findings detail the complex pathway from new models to impacts, with evidence regarding elements of new models of integrated care, targets for change, process change, influencing factors, service-level outcomes and system-wide impacts. A number of positive outcomes were reported in the literature, with stronger evidence of perceived increased patient satisfaction and improved quality of care and access to care. There was stronger UK-only evidence of reduced outpatient appointments and waiting times. Evidence was inconsistent regarding other outcomes and system-wide impacts such as levels of activity and costs. There was an indication that new models have particular potential with patients who have complex needs.

Limitations

Defining new models of integrated care is challenging, and there is the potential that our study excluded potentially relevant literature. The review was extensive, with diverse study populations and interventions that precluded the statistical summary of effectiveness.

Conclusions

There is stronger evidence that new models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction and perceived quality and increase access; however, the evidence regarding other outcomes is unclear. The study recommends factors to be considered during the implementation of new models.

Future work

Links between elements of new models and outcomes require further study, together with research in a wider variety of populations.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD37725.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence

BACKGROUND

Healthcare systems around the world have been responding to the demand for better integrated models of service delivery. However, there is a need for further clarity regarding the effects of these new models of integration, and exploration regarding whether models introduced in other care systems may achieve similar outcomes in a UK national health service context.

METHODS

The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effects of integration or co-ordination between healthcare services, or between health and social care on service delivery outcomes including effectiveness, efficiency and quality of care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Science and Social Science Citation Indices; and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature published between 2006 to March 2017. Online sources were searched for UK grey literature, and citation searching, and manual reference list screening were also carried out. Quantitative primary studies and systematic reviews, reporting actual or perceived effects on service delivery following the introduction of models of integration or co-ordination, in healthcare or health and social care settings in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Strength of evidence for each outcome reported was analysed and synthesised using a four point comparative rating system of stronger, weaker, inconsistent or limited evidence.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty seven studies were eligible for inclusion. Analysis indicated evidence of perceived improved quality of care, evidence of increased patient satisfaction, and evidence of improved access to care. Evidence was rated as either inconsistent or limited regarding all other outcomes reported, including system-wide impacts on primary care, secondary care, and health care costs. There were limited differences between outcomes reported by UK and international studies, and overall the literature had a limited consideration of effects on service users.

CONCLUSIONS

Models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction, increase perceived quality of care, and enable access to services, although the evidence for other outcomes including service costs remains unclear. Indications of improved access may have important implications for services struggling to cope with increasing demand.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospero registration number: 42016037725 .

Location of care for people with serious mental illness (LOCAPE): implications for service use and costs using a mixed-methods approach

Background

This study focuses on health care received by people with serious mental illness (SMI). The aim is to examine the economic implications of different locations of management of care and the views of service users and staff regarding services set up as alternatives to secondary care.

Objectives

Specific objectives are to (1) identify people with SMI managed in primary or secondary care; (2) identify those who could be potentially transferred to primary care; (3) compare the characteristics of these groups; (4) compare service use and costs; (5) generate models to estimate cost changes following transfer between settings; (6) identify characteristics associated with time to transition to secondary care; (7) investigate experiences of patients receiving support from community-based interventions; and (8) assess the economic impact of interventions to facilitate transfer of care management.

Methods

(1) Quantitative component – using linked primary and secondary care data we examined differences between those discharged to primary care (n = 1410) and those still in secondary care (n = 1629). Service use and costs were compared and predictors of costs were identified using regression models. (2) Qualitative component – interviews following a topic guide were conducted at two time points with 31 people using and 10 people working in services set up as alternatives to secondary care. (3) Economic modelling – an analysis of the health-care costs of the above services compared with usual care was conducted using decision modelling. Data were obtained from local services where possible, and the time horizon was 12 months.

Results

(1) Quantitative component – characteristics of those discharged to primary care (n = 1410) were similar to those still in secondary care (n = 1629). Costs for those discharged to primary care were 48% lower than for those remaining in secondary care. Other variables strongly associated with costs were a history of violence and a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Few patients in secondary care had a high probability of primary care management and, therefore, excess costs were only around £150,000 across the sample. (2) Qualitative component – service users’ views about a community options team and a primary care support service were positive and compared favourably to services used previously. Views about peer support were slightly less consistent. Staff had concerns with regard to caseload sizes and staff turnover. (3) Economic modelling – services to help transition had costs that were 40% of those for standard care. The results of this showed that triaging patients into these services would save £1578 over a 1-year period and that the results were robust to changes in most parameters.

Limitations

Analysis was hindered by the extent to which data were available. Qualitative analyses were limited by the fact that most of the participants did not have a SMI as usually defined and that many had been out of contact with secondary services for a long period of time.

Conclusions

Costs are substantially lower in primary care than secondary care, even after controlling for service-user patient differences. Generally, there is satisfaction with services to help facilitate primary care provision and these appear to be cost saving. Future work should continue the analysis of linked data and involve a more comprehensive evaluation of the specific services investigated here.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Mental health diagnosis by nurses using the Global Mental Health Assessment Tool: a validity and feasibility study

BACKGROUND

The Global Mental Health Assessment Tool-Primary Care Version (GMHAT/PC) has been developed to assist health professionals to make a quick and comprehensive standardised mental health assessment. It has proved to be a reliable and valid tool in a previous study involving GPs. Its use by other health professionals may help in detecting and managing mental disorders in primary care and general health settings.

AIM

To assess the feasibility of using a computer-assisted diagnostic interview by nurses and to examine the level of agreement between the GMHAT/PC diagnosis and psychiatrists' clinical diagnosis.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Cross-sectional validation study.

SETTING

Primary care, general healthcare (cardiac rehabilitation clinic), and community mental healthcare settings.

METHOD

A total of 215 patients between the ages of 16 and 75 years were assessed by nurses and psychiatrists in various settings: primary care centre (n = 54), cardiac rehabilitation centre (n = 98), and community mental health clinic (n = 63). The time taken for the interview, and feedback from patients and interviewers were indicators of feasibility, and the kappa coefficient (kappa), sensitivity, and specificity of the GMHAT/PC diagnosis were measures of validity.

RESULTS

Mean duration of interview was under 15 minutes. The agreement between nurses' GMHAT/PC interview-based diagnosis and psychiatrists' International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 criteria-based clinical diagnosis was 80% (kappa = 0.76, sensitivity = 0.84, specificity = 0.92).

CONCLUSION

The GMHAT/PC can assist nurses to make accurate mental health assessment and diagnosis in various healthcare settings and it is acceptable to patients.