scholarly journals Acute Day Units for mental health crises: A qualitative study of service user and staff views and experiences

Author(s):  
Nicola Morant ◽  
Michael Davidson ◽  
Jane Wackett ◽  
Danielle Lamb ◽  
Vanessa Pinfold ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundAcute Day Units (ADUs) provide intensive, non-residential, short-term treatment for adults in mental health crisis. They currently exist in approximately 30% of health localities in England, but there is little research into their functioning or effectiveness, and how this form of crisis care is experienced by service users. This qualitative study explores the views and experiences of stakeholders who use and work in ADUs.MethodsWe conducted 36 semi-structured interviews with service users, staff and carers at four ADUs in England. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsBoth service users and staff provided generally positive accounts of using or working in ADUs. Valued features were structured programmes that provide routine, meaningful group activities, and opportunities for peer contact and emotional, practical and peer support, within a ‘safe’ environment. Aspects of ADU care were often described as enabling personal and social connections that contribute to shifting from crisis to recovery. ADUs were compared favourably to other forms of home- and hospital-based acute care, particularly in providing more therapeutic input and social contact. Some service users and staff thought ADU lengths of stay should be extended slightly, and staff described some ADUs being under-utilised or poorly-understood by referrers in local acute care systems.ConclusionsMulti-site qualitative data suggests that ADUs provide a distinctive and valued contribution to acute care systems, and can avoid known problems associated with other forms of acute care, such as low user satisfaction, stressful ward environments, and little therapeutic input or positive peer contact. Findings suggest there may be grounds for recommending further development and more widespread implementation of ADUs to increase choice within local acute care systems.

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Morant ◽  
Michael Davidson ◽  
Jane Wackett ◽  
Danielle Lamb ◽  
Vanessa Pinfold ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Acute Day Units (ADUs) provide intensive, non-residential, short-term treatment for adults in mental health crisis. They currently exist in approximately 30% of health localities in England, but there is little research into their functioning or effectiveness, and how this form of crisis care is experienced by service users. This qualitative study explores the views and experiences of stakeholders who use and work in ADUs. Methods We conducted 36 semi-structured interviews with service users, staff and carers at four ADUs in England. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Peer researchers collected data and contributed to analysis, and a Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) provided perspectives across the whole project. Results Both service users and staff provided generally positive accounts of using or working in ADUs. Valued features were structured programmes that provide routine, meaningful group activities, and opportunities for peer contact and emotional, practical and peer support, within an environment that felt safe. Aspects of ADU care were often described as enabling personal and social connections that contribute to shifting from crisis to recovery. ADUs were compared favourably to other forms of home- and hospital-based acute care, particularly in providing more therapeutic input and social contact. Some service users and staff thought ADU lengths of stay should be extended slightly, and staff described some ADUs being under-utilised or poorly-understood by referrers in local acute care systems. Conclusions Multi-site qualitative data suggests that ADUs provide a distinctive and valued contribution to acute care systems, and can avoid known problems associated with other forms of acute care, such as low user satisfaction, stressful ward environments, and little therapeutic input or positive peer contact. Findings suggest there may be grounds for recommending further development and more widespread implementation of ADUs to increase choice and effective support within local acute care systems.


2009 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
pp. 634-639 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hind Khalifeh ◽  
Catherine Murgatroyd ◽  
Mona Freeman ◽  
Sonia Johnson ◽  
Helen Killaspy

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 730-740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Dooris ◽  
Sue Powell ◽  
Alan Farrier

Abstract Focusing on the conceptualization of a whole university approach, this paper reports on an international qualitative study that explored vice-chancellors’ and network members’ understanding of and commitment to Health Promoting Universities, examined perspectives on leadership and investigated the Okanagan Charter’s potential to catalyse whole university leadership and change. A multi-method qualitative approach was used: semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted face-to-face with vice-chancellors (n = 12) and Health Promoting University co-ordinators who were members of the UK Healthy Universities Network (n = 8); telephone interviews were conducted with a mix of UK and non-UK Health Promoting University co-ordinators (n = 5) and two online questionnaires were distributed to non-UK network co-ordinators (n = 6) and non-UK Health Promoting University co-ordinators (n = 10). Through thematic analysis, a number of key themes emerged that build a new conceptualization of the whole university approach (see Figure 1): building a broad understanding and framing of health; developing a supportive ethos and culture; embedding health into the university and joining up areas of work; focusing on the whole population and facing challenges and seizing opportunities. The study elicited rich and wide-ranging views from multiple stakeholders from universities and networks across four continents, confirming Health Promoting Universities as a truly global movement. Looking ahead, there are clear opportunities and challenges. First, the media narrative of a student mental health ‘crisis’ has focused universities’ attention on ‘health’, but from a single issue ‘illness’ perspective. This risks detracting from the whole system Health Promoting Universities approach. Second, even with the Okanagan Charter inspiring individuals and universities, there are still major challenges in translating the rhetoric of whole system approaches into meaningful action within large, complex and culturally diverse organizations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Opeyemi Odejimi ◽  
Dhruba Bagchi ◽  
George Tadros

Abstract Background Mental health crisis requiring emergency access to psychiatric service can occur at any time. Psychiatric Emergency Service (PES) is described as one that provides an immediate response to an individual in crisis within the first 24 h. Presently, several types of PESs are available in the United Kingdom (UK) with the aim of providing prompt and effective assessment and management of patients. Therefore, this study aims to provide a detailed narrative literature review of the various types of Psychiatric Emergency Service (PES) currently available in the UK. Method Electronic search of five key databases (MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, AMED and PUBMED) was conducted. Studies were included if it described a mental health service in the UK that provides immediate response in mental health crisis within the first 24 h. Excluded studies did not describe a PES, non-English, and were not conducted in UK. Results Nine types of PESs were found. Amongst the 9 services, more papers described crisis resolution home treatment. Majority of the papers reported services within England than other countries within the UK. Conclusion All types of PESs were described as beneficial, particularly to mental health service users, but not without some shortcomings. There is a need to continue carrying out methodological research that evaluate impact, cost-effectiveness as well as identify methods of optimising the beneficial outcomes of the various types of PESs. This may help inform researchers, policy makers and commissioners, service users and carers, service providers and many more on how to ensure current and future PESs meet the needs as well as aid recovery during crisis.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (18) ◽  
pp. 1-122
Author(s):  
David Osborn ◽  
Danielle Lamb ◽  
Alastair Canaway ◽  
Michael Davidson ◽  
Graziella Favarato ◽  
...  

Background For people in mental health crisis, acute day units provide daily structured sessions and peer support in non-residential settings as an alternative to crisis resolution teams. Objectives To investigate the provision, effectiveness, intervention acceptability and re-admission rates of acute day units. Design Work package 1 – mapping and national questionnaire survey of acute day units. Work package 2.1 – cohort study comparing outcomes during a 6-month period between acute day unit and crisis resolution team participants. Work package 2.2 – qualitative interviews with staff and service users of acute day units. Work package 3 – a cohort study within the Mental Health Minimum Data Set exploring re-admissions to acute care over 6 months. A patient and public involvement group supported the study throughout. Setting and participants Work package 1 – all non-residential acute day units (NHS and voluntary sector) in England. Work packages 2.1 and 2.2 – four NHS trusts with staff, service users and carers in acute day units and crisis resolution teams. Work package 3 – all individuals using mental health NHS trusts in England. Results Work package 1 – we identified 27 acute day units in 17 out of 58 trusts. Acute day units are typically available on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., providing a wide range of interventions and a multidisciplinary team, including clinicians, and having an average attendance of 5 weeks. Work package 2.1 – we recruited 744 participants (acute day units, n = 431; crisis resolution teams, n = 312). In the primary analysis, 21% of acute day unit participants (vs. 23% of crisis resolution team participants) were re-admitted to acute mental health services over 6 months. There was no statistically significant difference in the fully adjusted model (acute day unit hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.14; p = 0.20), with highly heterogeneous results between trusts. Acute day unit participants had higher satisfaction and well-being scores and lower depression scores than crisis resolution team participants. The health economics analysis found no difference in resource use or cost between the acute day unit and crisis resolution team groups in the fully adjusted analysis. Work package 2.2 – 36 people were interviewed (acute day unit staff, n = 12; service users, n = 21; carers, n = 3). There was an overwhelming consensus that acute day units are highly valued. Service users found the high amount of contact time and staff continuity, peer support and structure provided by acute day units particularly beneficial. Staff also valued providing continuity, building strong therapeutic relationships and providing a variety of flexible, personalised support. Work package 3 – of 231,998 individuals discharged from acute care (crisis resolution team, acute day unit or inpatient ward), 21.4% were re-admitted for acute treatment within 6 months, with women, single people, people of mixed or black ethnicity, those living in more deprived areas and those in the severe psychosis care cluster being more likely to be re-admitted. Little variation in re-admissions was explained at the trust level, or between trusts with and trusts without acute day units (adjusted odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.15). Limitations In work package 1, some of the information is likely to be incomplete as a result of trusts’ self-reporting. There may have been recruitment bias in work packages 2.1 and 2.2. Part of the health economics analysis relied on clinical Health of the Nations Outcome Scale ratings. The Mental Health Minimum Data Set did not contain a variable identifying acute day units, and some covariates had a considerable number of missing data. Conclusions Acute day units are not provided routinely in the NHS but are highly valued by staff and service users, giving better outcomes in terms of satisfaction, well-being and depression than, and no significant differences in risk of re-admission or increased costs from, crisis resolution teams. Future work should investigate wider health and care system structures and the place of acute day units within them; the development of a model of best practice for acute day units; and staff turnover and well-being (including the impacts of these on care). Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2014 ◽  
Vol 49 (10) ◽  
pp. 1609-1617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Farrelly ◽  
Gill Brown ◽  
Diana Rose ◽  
Elizabeth Doherty ◽  
R. Claire Henderson ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document