Uptake of mandatory outcome measures in mental health services

Seclusion within the first 24 h following admission into inpatient mental health services and associations with referral pathways, recent service contact and HoNOS ratings

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Seclusion is a harmful and traumatising intervention for people accessing mental health services. People who are subject to seclusion in inpatient mental health services often first experience this within the first 24 h following admission. There is limited research examining how recent contact with services impacts the likelihood of seclusion when people are admitted to inpatient services. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Males, Māori and Pasifika experience higher rates of seclusion within the first 24 h following inpatient admission. People perceived by clinicians as overactive, aggressive, disruptive or agitated are seven times more likely to be secluded within the first 24 h. People referred from police or justice services are three times more likely to be secluded within the first 24 h. People who had frequent contact with community mental health services prior to inpatient admission were less likely to be secluded. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: The first 24 h of inpatient admission is a critical focus for eliminating the use of seclusion. Initial interactions with people recently admitted should focus on nurturing relationships and reducing distress. Mental health staff should consider the person's cultural needs, referral pathway, recent service contact and baseline ratings on the Health of the Nation Outcomes Scales (HoNOS) when working proactively to prevent the use of seclusion in the first 24 h following admission. Strengthening the focus on nurturing relationships, cultural understanding and non-coercive de-escalation approaches requires leadership support and strategic workforce development. ABSTRACT: Introduction People who experience seclusion in inpatient mental health services often do so within the first 24 h following admission. There is limited research examining the potential contributing factors, particularly recent contact with services. Aim/Question To identify factors associated with seclusion within the first 24 h following admission into acute inpatient mental health services. Method A retrospective analysis was undertaken using routinely collected data from Aotearoa New Zealand mental health services. Results A higher likelihood of seclusion within the first 24 h following admission was associated with: males, Māori, Pasifika, referrals from police/justice services, inpatient transfers, recent contact with crisis assessment teams and clinician perceptions of aggression, problematic substance use, cognitive problems and hallucinations or delusions. Recent contact with community mental health services was associated with a lower likelihood. Discussion People's cultural needs, referral pathway, recent service contact and HoNOS scores should be considered when working to prevent the use of seclusion in the first 24 h following admission. Implications for Practice The first 24 h following inpatient admission is a critical period for preventing the use of seclusion. Nurturing relationships, cultural understanding and use of non-coercive de-escalation approaches can support better outcomes for people recently admitted.

Effectiveness of treatment for 6813 patients with mental health conditions in Cambridgeshire: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The Health of the Nation Outcomes Scales (HoNOS) has been widely used as an outcome measure in UK mental health settings for the past decade. The data-set gathered provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the totality of mental healthcare in 'real-world' conditions; much of our clinical evidence currently comes from highly parameterised clinical trials investigating single interventions in highly selected patients.

AIMS

To examine all outcomes measured by HoNOS for a range of diagnostic groups, evaluate the influence of patient demographics on those outcomes, and observe changes in patient groups over time.

METHOD

Here we show the data from 6813 adult patients treated in Cambridgeshire between 2012 and 2017. Patients were split into three diagnostic groups: psychosis, non-psychosis and organic. Changes in HoNOS scores from initial assessment to discharge were tested and regressions were used to evaluate the influence of age, gender and ethnicity on the changes, as well as to model changes in the severity of initial presenting symptoms with time.

RESULTS

HoNOS scores significantly improve after treatment for psychotic, non-psychotic and organic conditions in adults and older adults. Age, but not gender or ethnicity, influenced change in HoNOS scores. Patients entering secondary mental health services had increased initial HoNOS scores over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The UK repository of HoNOS scores provides a significant and relatively underutilised resource that can be exploited to gain insights into mental illness and treatment effectiveness. This is likely to have many applications, including influencing the commissioning of services.

Do patients get better? A review of outcomes from a crisis house and home treatment team partnership

Aims and methodThe Tower Hamlets Crisis House (voluntary sector), in partnership with the local home treatment team, offers a brief residential alternative to psychiatric hospital admission. Here, we review clinician-reported (Health of the Nation Outcome Scales; HoNOS) and patient-reported (DIALOG) outcome scores collected from successive admissions between June 2015 and December 2016, to assess the effectiveness of the service model. We identified 153 successive admissions, and of these, 85 (55.6%) and 91 (59.5%) patients completed both admission and discharge DIALOG and HoNOS questionnaires, respectively. We analysed ten out of twelve HoNOS domains and eight patient-reported outcome measure DIALOG domains. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant improvement in nine out of ten domains of HoNOS and three out of eight domains of DIALOG.Clinical implicationsA partnership between a home treatment team and crisis house can result in positive outcomes for patients, as determined by both clinicians and patients.Declaration of interestNone.

Funding approaches for mental health services: Is there still a role for clustering?

Funding for mental health services in England faces many challenges including operating under financial constraints where it is not easy to demonstrate the link between activity and funding. Mental health services need to operate alongside and collaborate with acute hospital services where there is a well-established system for paying for activity. The funding landscape is shifting at a rapid pace and we outline the distinctions between the three main options - block contracts, episodic payment and capitation. Classification of treatment episodes via clustering presents an opportunity to demonstrate activity and reward it within these payment approaches. We have been engaged in research to assess how well the clustering system is performing against a number of fundamental criteria. Clusters need to be reliably recorded, to correspond to health needs, and to treatments that require roughly similar resources. We find that according to these criteria, clusters are falling short of providing a sound basis for measuring and financing services. Yet, we argue, it is the best available option and is essential for a more transparent funding approach for mental health to demonstrate its claim on resources, and that, as such, clusters should be a starting point for evolving a better funding system.

An evidence-based approach to routine outcome assessment

Routine use of Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) has not produced the anticipated benefits for people using mental health services. Four HoNOS-specific reasons for this are: low relevance to clinical decision-making; not reflecting service user priorities; being staff-rated; and having a focus on deficits. More generally, the imposition of a centrally chosen measure on the mental health system leads to a clash of cultures, since frontline workers do not need a standardised measure to treat individuals. A better approach might be to use research from the emerging academic discipline of implementation science to inform the routine use of a standardised measure that is chosen by the people who will use it and hence is more concordant with existing clinical processes. This is illustrated using a case study of successful implementation of the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN) in community mental health services across Ontario, Canada.

Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the self-sufficiency matrix (SSM-D)

Measuring treatment outcomes can be challenging in patients who experience multiple interlinked problems, as is the case in public mental health care (PMHC). This study describes the development and psychometric properties of a Dutch version of the self-sufficiency matrix (SSM-D), an instrument that measures outcomes and originates from the US. In two different settings, clients were rated using the SSM-D in combination with the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) and the Camberwell assessment of need short appraisal schedule (CANSAS). The results provided support for adequate psychometric properties of the SSM-D. The SSM-D had a solid single factor structure and internal consistency of the scale was excellent. In addition, convergent validity of the SSM-D was indicated by strong correlations between HoNOS and CANSAS, as well as between several subdomains. Further research is needed to establish whether the results presented here can be obtained in other PMHC settings.

Measuring clinical change in routine mental health care: differences between first time and longer term service users

OBJECTIVE

The aims were to assess the feasibility of routinely collecting outcome data in everyday mental health services across Italy and to evaluate clinical change in a cohort of patients stratified by illness duration.

METHOD

A prevalence sample of patients attending nine Italian community mental health services (CMHS) was assessed over one year with the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). The patients were classified on the basis of the duration of their contact with services. Clinical outcome was evaluated taking into account parameters of reliable and clinically significant change (RCSC). Predictors of change included clinical and socio-demographic characteristics at first assessment and six month reliable improvement.

RESULTS

2059 patients were evaluated with only 3% attrition at follow up; 22% of first time and about 7% of longer term users achieved reliable improvement at one year. First contacts had a better outcome than longer term users and significant differences were seen at both group and individual level. Reliable improvement at six months was the best predictor of clinical improvement at one year for the whole cohort.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated the feasibility of routine outcome assessment and gave an expected and realistic picture of the one-year outcome of a representative sample of patients attending a group of Italian CMHS. RCSC showed potential utility as a means of communicating with clinicians and decision makers.

An evaluation of the implementation of the FACE Health and Social Assessment in routine psychiatric practice

BACKGROUND

Systematic assessment of patients is seen as an important aspect of mental health care. As yet few UK services have successfully implemented outcome measures.

AIMS

To examine the feasibility of using FACE Health and Social Assessment in everyday practice and explore issues raised for staff.

METHOD

This comprised a feasibility questionnaire completed by 52 staff, 3 focus groups involving 18 staff and an analysis of patient scores on routinely collected FACE data.

RESULT

The questionnaire findings were positive yet only just over half of the patients on Assertive Outreach (AO) teams had some part of FACE completed in the previous year. The focus groups drew attention to many other calls on staff time and the importance of ongoing support. Staff were uncertain about the benefits of FACE for measuring change but believed that it promoted reflective practice. FACE subscores showed some ability to discriminate between patients on Rehabilitation and Recovery and AO teams but there were no significant differences for AO patients over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Although competing demands and low priority may underpin the failure to implement FACE it is perhaps clinical staffs lack of conviction in its contribution to improving mental health care that is the fundamental issue.