Critical failures in a regional network of residential treatment facilities

Medication Treatment for Youth in Substance Use Disorder Residential Treatment

OBJECTIVE

Residential is a common treatment setting for youth with high-severity substance use disorders (SUD). This study evaluated the prevalence of psychiatric symptoms and medication for youth in residential SUD treatment.

METHODS

Youth in Massachusetts state licensed and funded SUD residential programs completed questionnaires assessing demographics, primary substance of use, and psychopathology symptoms (Youth Self Report [YSR]/Adult Self Report [ASR]). De-identified medication lists were provided by the programs. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample.

RESULTS

Among the 47 youth who participated, 51.1% were male, 72.3% white, 83% non-Hispanic, mean age 20.7 years. Opioids were the most common primary substance identified by youth (51.1%), and 75% had at least one clinically elevated subscale on the YSR/ASR. Most youth were prescribed at least one medication (89.4%) with a mean of 2.9 medications.

CONCLUSION

Youth in SUD residential treatment frequently have clinically elevated psychiatric symptoms, and psychotropic medication was commonly prescribed.

Does Model Matter? Examining Change Across Time for Youth in Group Homes

Group homes are a frequently used but controversial treatment setting for youth with mental health problems. Within the relatively sparse literature on group homes, there is some evidence that some models of treatment may be associated with more positive outcomes for youth. This article explores this possibility by examining differences across time for youth served in group homes utilizing the Teaching Family Model (TFM) and geographically proximate homes using more eclectic approaches. Data come from a longitudinal quasi-experimental study that included 554 youth. Results suggest that youth showed, on average, significant and rapid improvement during initial months in a group home. Improvement did not differ for TFM and non-TFM homes during this initial period. Post-discharge results, though, show that TFM was associated with continued improvement after discharge and significantly better outcomes by 8 months post-discharge. Results also discuss youth-level factors that may influence outcomes as well as need for additional work to more fully understand processes and practices that are key for maximizing and maintaining youths' positive outcomes during and after group home placements.

Who Goes Where? Exploring Factors Related to Placement Among Group Homes

Despite their widespread use as a placement option for youth with mental health problems, there is relatively little research on group homes for youth. Available data highlight concerns with practices and treatment within group homes and mixed results on youth-level outcomes. However, existing research appears to collapse a wide range of group residential settings into a single amorphous category. This article explores potential variations among group homes to examine whether different programs are systematically serving different types of youth. It examines, in particular, placement in homes using the teaching family model (TFM) versus homes that do not. Findings suggest that demographics are not significantly associated with TFM placement. However, custody status, types of mental health problems, and use of psychotropic medications are. Homes appear to be serving distinct niches within a geographic area. Implications for future research and policy/practice are discussed.

Predictors of Seclusion or Restraint Use Within Residential Treatment Centers for Children and Adolescents

This study identified predictors of seclusion or restraint use among licensed and/or accredited residential treatment centers (RTCs) for children and youth in the United States responding to a federally-sponsored survey of mental health services. 693 licensed and/or accredited child and adolescent RTCs responded to questions about the demographic and admission status of clients served on an identified date, services offered, size, ownership, funding, and their use of seclusion or restraint practices within the preceding 12 months. Logistic regression was used to determine factors predicting facility use of seclusion or restraint. A large majority of licensed and/or accredited child and adolescent RTCs (82 %) reported using seclusion or restraint in the prior year. Contrary to prior research, individual patient characteristics (percent of males, minorities, and involuntary admissions) did not predict the use of coercive techniques. Instead facility and funding variables accounted for approximately 27 % of the variance in the use of seclusion or restraint. Larger, privately-owned RTC's funded primarily through public monies and which offered medication and programming for SED youth were more likely to endorse having used seclusion or restraint in the previous year. Despite visible policy and advocacy efforts to reduce seclusion and restraint use over the past decade, a majority of licensed and/or accredited RTCs for children and adolescents report using such practices. Findings emphasize the importance of examining facility-level variables in predicting their use, and highlight the disconnect between nationally espoused goals and current practices regarding coercive techniques in child and adolescent RTCs.

Seclusion and restraint practices in residential treatment facilities for children and youth

Policymakers, advocates, and families remain concerned about the use of seclusion and restraint in residential treatment facilities for children and youth. This study used data from 2 national surveys to examine the extent to which residential treatment facilities consistently implement certain practices following incidents of seclusion or restraint. The study found that 76% of facilities reported having secluded or restrained youth in the previous year; 34% of these facilities reported that, following such incidents, they always debrief the youth, family, and staff; notify the attending physician; and record the incident in the treatment plan. Accredited facilities and those that conduct a trauma assessment upon admission were more than twice as likely as others to consistently implement these practices. States and providers should continue to monitor seclusion and restraint practices and identify opportunities for quality improvement.