Acute day units in non-residential settings for people in mental health crisis: the AD-CARE mixed-methods study

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.

Readmission after discharge from acute mental healthcare among 231 988 people in England: cohort study exploring predictors of readmission including availability of acute day units in local areas

Background In the UK, acute mental healthcare is provided by in-patient wards and crisis resolution teams. Readmission to acute care following discharge is common. Acute day units (ADUs) are also provided in some areas. Aims To assess predictors of readmission to acute mental healthcare following discharge in England, including availability of ADUs. Method We enrolled a national cohort of adults discharged from acute mental healthcare in the English National Health Service (NHS) between 2013 and 2015, determined the risk of readmission to either in-patient or crisis teams, and used multivariable, multilevel logistic models to evaluate predictors of readmission. Results Of a total of 231 998 eligible individuals discharged from acute mental healthcare, 49 547 (21.4%) were readmitted within 6 months, with a median time to readmission of 34 days (interquartile range 10–88 days). Most variation in readmission (98%) was attributable to individual patient-level rather than provider (trust)-level effects (2.0%). Risk of readmission was not associated with local availability of ADUs (adjusted odds ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.80–1.15). Statistically significant elevated risks were identified for participants who were female, older, single, from Black or mixed ethnic groups, or from more deprived areas. Clinical predictors included shorter index admission, psychosis and being an in-patient at baseline. Conclusions Relapse and readmission to acute mental healthcare are common following discharge and occur early. Readmission was not influenced significantly by trust-level variables including availability of ADUs. More support for relapse prevention and symptom management may be required following discharge from acute mental healthcare.

Fidelity to an evidence-based model for crisis resolution teams: a cross-sectional multicentre study in Norway

Background Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) are specialized multidisciplinary teams intended to provide assessment and short-term outpatient or home treatment as an alternative to hospital admission for people experiencing a mental health crisis. In Norway, CRTs have been established within mental health services throughout the country, but their fidelity to an evidence-based model for CRTs has been unknown. Methods We assessed fidelity to the evidence-based CRT model for 28 CRTs, using the CORE Crisis Resolution Team Fidelity Scale Version 2, a tool developed and first applied in the UK to measure adherence to a model of optimal CRT practice. The assessments were completed by evaluation teams based on written information, interviews, and review of patient records during a one-day visit with each CRT. Results The fidelity scale was applicable for assessing fidelity of Norwegian CRTs to the CRT model. On a scale 1 to 5, the mean fidelity score was low (2.75) and with a moderate variation of fidelity across the teams. The CRTs had highest scores on the content and delivery of care subscale, and lowest on the location and timing of care subscale. Scores were high on items measuring comprehensive assessment, psychological interventions, visit length, service users’ choice of location, and of type of support. However, scores were low on opening hours, gatekeeping acute psychiatric beds, facilitating early hospital discharge, intensity of contact, providing medication, and providing practical support. Conclusions The CORE CRT Fidelity Scale was applicable and relevant to assessment of Norwegian CRTs and may be used to guide further development in clinical practice and research. Lower fidelity and differences in fidelity patterns compared to the UK teams may indicate that Norwegian teams are more focused on early interventions to a broader patient group and less on avoiding acute inpatient admissions for patients with severe mental illness.

A comparison of clinical outcomes, service satisfaction and well-being in people using acute day units and crisis resolution teams: cohort study in England

Background For people in mental health crisis, acute day units (ADUs) provide daily structured sessions and peer support in non-residential settings, often as an addition or alternative to crisis resolution teams (CRTs). There is little recent evidence about outcomes for those using ADUs, particularly compared with those receiving CRT care alone. Aims We aimed to investigate readmission rates, satisfaction and well-being outcomes for people using ADUs and CRTs. Method We conducted a cohort study comparing readmission to acute mental healthcare during a 6-month period for ADU and CRT participants. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire), well-being (Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) and depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale). Results We recruited 744 participants (ADU: n = 431, 58%; CRT: n = 312, 42%) across four National Health Service trusts/health regions. There was no statistically significant overall difference in readmissions: 21% of ADU participants and 23% of CRT participants were readmitted over 6 months (adjusted hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.54–1.14). However, readmission results varied substantially by setting. At follow-up, ADU participants had significantly higher Client Satisfaction Questionnaire scores (2.5, 95% CI 1.4–3.5, P < 0.001) and well-being scores (1.3, 95% CI 0.4–2.1, P = 0.004), and lower depression scores (−1.7, 95% CI −2.7 to −0.8, P < 0.001), than CRT participants. Conclusions Patients who accessed ADUs demonstrated better outcomes for satisfaction, well-being and depression, and no significant differences in risk of readmission, compared with those who only used CRTs. Given the positive outcomes for patients, and the fact that ADUs are inconsistently provided in the National Health Service, their value and place in the acute care pathway needs further consideration and research.

A comparison of clinical outcomes, service satisfaction, and well-being in people using Acute Day Units and Crisis Resolution Teams: a cohort study in England

BackgroundFor people in mental health crisis, Acute Day Units (ADUs) provide daily structured sessions and peer support in non-residential settings, often as an addition or alternative to Crisis Resolution Teams (CRTs). There is little recent evidence about outcomes for those using ADUs, particularly in comparison to those receiving CRT care alone.AimsTo investigate readmission rates, satisfaction, and wellbeing outcomes for ADU and CRT service users.MethodsA cohort study comparing readmission to acute mental health care during a six-month period for ADU and CRT participants. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction (CSQ), wellbeing (SWEMWBS), and depression (CES-D).ResultsWe recruited 744 participants (ADU: 431, 58%; CRT 312, 42%) across 4 NHS Trusts/health regions. There was no statistically significant overall difference in readmissions; 21% of ADU participants (versus 23% CRT) were readmitted over 6 months (adjusted HR 0.78, 95%CI 0.54, 1.14). However, readmission results varied substantially by setting. At follow-up, ADU participants had significantly higher Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) scores (2.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 3.5, p<0.001) and wellbeing scores (1.3, 95%CI 0.4 to 2.1, p=0.004), and lower depression scores (−1.7, 95%CI −2.7 to −0.8, p<0.001) than CRT participants.ConclusionsService users who accessed ADUs demonstrated better outcomes for satisfaction, wellbeing, and depression, and no significant differences in risk of readmission compared to those who only used CRTs. Given the positive outcomes for service users, and the fact that ADUs are inconsistently provided across the country, their value and place in the acute care pathway needs further consideration and research.

The CORE service improvement programme for mental health crisis resolution teams: results from a cluster-randomised trial

BackgroundCrisis resolution teams (CRTs) offer brief, intensive home treatment for people experiencing mental health crisis. CRT implementation is highly variable; positive trial outcomes have not been reproduced in scaled-up CRT care.AimsTo evaluate a 1-year programme to improve CRTs’ model fidelity in a non-masked, cluster-randomised trial (part of the Crisis team Optimisation and RElapse prevention (CORE) research programme, trial registration number: ISRCTN47185233).MethodFifteen CRTs in England received an intervention, informed by the US Implementing Evidence-Based Practice project, involving support from a CRT facilitator, online implementation resources and regular team fidelity reviews. Ten control CRTs received no additional support. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction, measured by the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8), completed by 15 patients per team at CRT discharge (n = 375). Secondary outcomes: CRT model fidelity, continuity of care, staff well-being, in-patient admissions and bed use and CRT readmissions were also evaluated.ResultsAll CRTs were retained in the trial. Median follow-up CSQ-8 score was 28 in each group: the adjusted average in the intervention group was higher than in the control group by 0.97 (95% CI −1.02 to 2.97) but this was not significant (P = 0.34). There were fewer in-patient admissions, lower in-patient bed use and better staff psychological health in intervention teams. Model fidelity rose in most intervention teams and was significantly higher than in control teams at follow-up. There were no significant effects for other outcomes.ConclusionsThe CRT service improvement programme did not achieve its primary aim of improving patient satisfaction. It showed some promise in improving CRT model fidelity and reducing acute in-patient admissions.

Mental health crisis resolution teams and crisis care systems in England: a national survey

Aims and methodA national survey investigated the implementation of mental health crisis resolution teams (CRTs) in England. CRTs were mapped and team managers completed an online survey.ResultsNinety-five per cent of mapped CRTs (n = 233) completed the survey. Few CRTs adhered fully to national policy guidelines. CRT implementation and local acute care system contexts varied substantially. Access to CRTs for working-age adults appears to have improved, compared with a similar survey in 2012, despite no evidence of higher staffing levels. Specialist CRTs for children and for older adults with dementia have been implemented in some areas but are uncommon.Clinical implicationsA national mandate and policy guidelines have been insufficient to implement CRTs fully as planned. Programmes to support adherence to the CRT model and CRT service improvement are required. Clearer policy guidance is needed on requirements for crisis care for young people and older adults.Declaration of interestNone.