The impact of mental health service integration on systemic function: a staff perspective

Predictors of personal continuity of care of patients with severe mental illness: A comparison across five European countries

BACKGROUND

In Europe, at discharge from a psychiatric hospital, patients with severe mental illness may be exposed to one of two main care approaches: personal continuity, where one clinician is responsible for in- and outpatient care, and specialisation, where various clinicians are. Such exposure is decided through patient-clinician agreement or at the organisational level, depending on the country's health system. Since personal continuity would be more suitable for patients with complex psychosocial needs, the aim of this study was to identify predictors of patients' exposure to care approaches in different European countries.

METHODS

Data were collected on 7302 psychiatric hospitalised patients in 2015 in Germany, Poland, and Belgium (patient-level exposure); and in the UK and Italy (organisational-level exposure). At discharge, patients were exposed to one of the care approaches according to usual practice. Putative predictors of exposure at patients' discharge were assessed in both groups of countries.

RESULTS

Socially disadvantaged patients were significantly more exposed to personal continuity. In all countries, the main predictor of exposure was the admission hospital, except in Germany, where having a diagnosis of psychosis and a higher education status were predictors of exposure to personal continuity. In the UK, hospitals practising personal continuity had a more socially disadvantaged patient population.

CONCLUSION

Even in countries where exposure is decided through patient-clinician agreement, it was the admission hospital, not patient characteristics, that predicted exposure to care approaches. Nevertheless, organisational decisions in hospitals tend to expose socially disadvantaged patients to personal continuity.

In-patient treatment in functional and sectorised care: patient satisfaction and length of stay

BACKGROUND

Debate exists as to whether functional care, in which different psychiatrists are responsible for in- and out-patient care, leads to better in-patient treatment as compared with sectorised care, in which the same psychiatrist is responsible for care across settings. Aims To compare patient satisfaction with in-patient treatment and length of stay in functional and sectorised care.

METHOD

Patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of psychotic, affective or anxiety/somatoform disorders consecutively admitted to an adult acute psychiatric ward in 23 hospitals across 11 National Health Service trusts in England were recruited. Patient satisfaction with in-patient care and length of stay (LoS) were compared (trial registration ISRCTN40256812).

RESULTS

In total, 2709 patients were included, of which 1612 received functional and 1097 sectorised care. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in sectorised care (β = 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.73, P<0.001). This difference remained significant when adjusting for locality and patient characteristics. LoS was 6.9 days shorter for patients in sectorised care (β = -6.89, 95% CI -11.76 to -2.02, P<0.001), but this difference did not remain significant when adjusting for clustering by hospital (β = -4.89, 95% CI -13.34 to 3.56, P = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first robust evidence that patient satisfaction with in-patient treatment is higher in sectorised care, whereas findings for LoS are less conclusive. If patient satisfaction is seen as a key criterion, sectorised care seems preferable. Declarations of interest None.

Indicators and Measurement Tools for Health Systems Integration: A Knowledge Synthesis

Background:

Despite far reaching support for integrated care, conceptualizing and measuring integrated care remains challenging. This knowledge synthesis aimed to identify indicator domains and tools to measure progress towards integrated care.

Methods:

We used an established framework and a Delphi survey with integration experts to identify relevant measurement domains. For each domain, we searched and reviewed the literature for relevant tools.

Findings:

From 7,133 abstracts, we retrieved 114 unique tools. We found many quality tools to measure care coordination, patient engagement and team effectiveness/performance. In contrast, there were few tools in the domains of performance measurement and information systems, alignment of organizational goals and resource allocation. The search yielded 12 tools that measure overall integration or three or more indicator domains.

Discussion:

Our findings highlight a continued gap in tools to measure foundational components that support integrated care. In the absence of such targeted tools, “overall integration” tools may be useful for a broad assessment of the overall state of a system.

Conclusions:

Continued progress towards integrated care depends on our ability to evaluate the success of strategies across different levels and context. This study has identified 114 tools that measure integrated care across 16 domains, supporting efforts towards a unified measurement framework.

Continuity across inpatient and outpatient mental health care or specialisation of teams? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A central question for the organisation of mental health care is whether the same clinicians should be responsible for a patient's care across inpatient and outpatient settings (continuity of care) or if there should be separate teams (specialisation). Current reforms in Europe are inconsistent on which to favour, and are based on little research evidence. This review is the first systematic appraisal of the existing evidence comparing continuity of care and specialisation across inpatient and outpatient mental health care.

METHOD

A systematic search for studies of any design comparing mental health care systems based on continuity or specialisation of care was performed. Differences in clinical, social and cost-effective outcomes, and the views and experiences of patients and staff were assessed using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies had methodological shortcomings, but findings point towards reduced length and number of hospitalisations, and faster or more flexible transitions between services in continuity systems. Survey and qualitative findings suggest advantages of both systems, whilst patients and staff appear to prefer a continuity system.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base suggests better outcomes and stakeholder preferences for continuity of care systems, but the quality of existing studies is insufficient to draw definitive conclusions. Higher quality comparative studies across various settings and population groups are urgently needed.

General practice recruitment for schizophrenia prevention studies

OBJECTIVE

To examine the barriers and incentives that may exist for Australian general practitioners (GPs) to screen for and detect individuals at risk of developing schizophrenia and to participate in studies aimed at assessing screening procedures.

METHOD

Examination of literature, existing procedures in general practice, informed by experience in the GP Integration Support, Evaluation and Resource Unit during 1995-1999 and the General Practice Integration Research Programme and the reports arising from this.

RESULTS

The attitudes and responses of GPs to research proposals and to working with researchers will be influenced by their overall relationship with mental health services. As the average GP will only have a small caseload of patients with schizophrenia, it is important to provide some incentive to encourage GP involvement in schizophrenia prevention studies. Key incentives include: the availability of specialist support from mental health practitioners; systems development in general practice; inclusion in the research team; and Quality Assurance points.

CONCLUSIONS

General practitioners have shown willingness to engage in a diversity of research projects, including mental health research. Divisions of General Practice are increasingly interested in evaluation and research and may be a useful entry point for approaching GPs as a group.