scholarly journals M238. CREATION OF A PEER SUPPORT PROGRAM TO SUPPORT TRANSITIONS IN CARE FROM EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES FOR PSYCHOSIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S226-S226
Author(s):  
Candice Crocker ◽  
Andy Cox ◽  
Sabina Abidi ◽  
Zenovia Ursuliak ◽  
Noah Epstein ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Specialized early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis have been shown to have superior outcomes compared to routine care. However, these gains are often lost when care is transferred to community mental health care teams. Research has shown that young adults experience anxiety, worry and stigma around the transition process from EIS, which can impact ongoing engagement with treatment. Transition to a new care team has been shown to be a time for disengagement. Despite this area’s acknowledged importance, there is a paucity of literature on how to maintain engagement during the transition process from an EIS to community services. We conducted a qualitative study with EIS for psychosis patients in various phases of transition which informed the development of a peer support program focused on the transition time period. Methods Focus groups were conducted to identify strengths and weaknesses of the transition process from a Canadian EIS program. Thematic analysis was conducted on the transcripts from the focus groups. Following themes from the focus groups, a research study was developed to create and evaluate a peer support worker (PSW) program for individuals in transition from the EIS. Peer support workers were recruited from individuals who had successfully transitioned from the same five year EIS for psychosis program. Individuals underwent training as peer support workers that was tailored to the needs of individuals with a psychotic disorder. Peer support workers met with clients in both clinical and community settings with support and feedback provided by clinicians in the EIS. Results Strengths identified included preparation time, helping individuals feel stable prior to transition and inclusion in decision making. Weaknesses included communication, more individualized preparation for transition and a desire for more opportunities to build independence and responsibility. A major theme was lack of peer support during the process, with a voiced desire to maintain connection to EIS by being a peer mentor in those who had already transitioned out. We recruited 7 individuals interested in becoming PSW and with a PSACC Certified Peer Support Mentor, designed a curriculum for training based on his peer support training experience with feedback from clinicians to customize it to the experience of living with psychosis and transition. The features of this curriculum will be discussed. 5 of 7 individuals completed training. 4 expressed an interest in being hired. 1 was not able to complete the hiring process but did an exit interview and impediments to hiring included costs associated with hiring practices that needed to be paid up front then reimbursed, limited internet access to a secure connection that allowed HR software to function and transportation issues. 3 individuals were hired as PSW (2 F,1M) and supported participants transitioning from our clinic who were interested. PSW would meet in the clinic with individuals prior to transition then support them in the community for several months after transition. 1 PSW relapsed during the course of the study. Only 1 PSW has continued with our program. Patients in transition participating in the program underwent semi-structured interviews that indicated satisfaction with the program. Discussion At project launch, we examined the literature and could only find one paper related to the concept of PSW and transition in psychosis. Having lived the process of developing the program, we gained an understanding of the difficulties of enacting what we have found to be a highly successful adjunct to our program. PSW programs involving individuals with psychosis are expensive to launch and attrition is high but these costs need to be weighed against improved transition outcomes.

ASHA Leader ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 26-27
Author(s):  
Janet McCarty ◽  
Laurie Havens

Medicaid, federal education funds and private insurance all cover the costs of speech-language and hearing services for infants and toddlers. Learn who pays for what.


Author(s):  
Dezarie Moskal ◽  
Holly Whitaker ◽  
Julia F. Bernstein ◽  
Stephen A. Maisto ◽  
Gerard J. Connors

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Raspa ◽  
Kathleen Hebbeler ◽  
Donald B. Bailey ◽  
Anita A. Scarborough

2011 ◽  
Vol 62 (8) ◽  
pp. 882-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Lester ◽  
Max Marshall ◽  
Peter Jones ◽  
David Fowler ◽  
Tim Amos ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 1100-1111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Hetrick ◽  
Denise A O'Connor ◽  
Heather Stavely ◽  
Frank Hughes ◽  
Kerryn Pennell ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 070674372199267
Author(s):  
Ashok Malla ◽  
Manish Dama ◽  
Srividya Iyer ◽  
Ridha Joober ◽  
Norbert Schmitz ◽  
...  

Background: Clinical, functional, and cost-effectiveness outcomes from early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis are significantly associated with the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) for the patients they serve. However, most EIS patients continue to report long DUP, while a reduction of DUP may improve outcomes. An understanding of different components of DUP and the factors associated with them may assist in targeting interventions toward specific sources of DUP. Objectives: To examine the components of DUP and their respective determinants in order to inform strategies for reducing delay in treatment in the context of an EIS. Methods: Help-seeking (DUP-H), Referral (DUP-R), and Administrative (DUP-A) components of DUP, pathways to care, and patient characteristics were assessed in first episode psychosis ( N = 532) patients entering an EIS that focuses on systemic interventions to promote rapid access. Determinants of each component were identified in the present sample using multivariate analyses. Results: DUP-H (mean 25.64 ± 59.00) was longer than DUP-R (mean = 14.95 ± 45.67) and DUP-A (mean 1.48 ± 2.55). Multivariate analyses showed that DUP-H is modestly influenced by patient characteristics (diagnosis and premorbid adjustment; R 2 = 0.12) and DUP-R by a combination of personal characteristics (age of onset and education) and systemic factors (first health services contact and final source of referral; R 2 = 0.21). Comorbid substance abuse and referral from hospital emergency services have a modest influence on DUP-A ( R 2 = 0.08). Patients with health care contact prior to onset of psychosis had a shorter DUP-H and DUP-R than those whose first contact was after psychosis onset (F(1, 498) = 4.85, P < 0.03 and F(1, 492) = 3.34, P < 0.07). Conclusions: Although much of the variance in DUP is unexplained, especially for help-seeking component, the systemic portion of DUP may be partially determined by relatively malleable factors. Interventions directed at altering pathways to care and promote rapid access may be important targets for reducing DUP. Simplifying administrative procedures may further assist in reducing DUP.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document