Psychiatric liaison service referral patterns during the UK COVID-19 pandemic: An observational study

The effectiveness of brief non-pharmacological interventions in emergency departments and psychiatric inpatient units for people in crisis: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVE

Heterogeneous brief non-pharmacological interventions and guidelines exist to treat the burgeoning presentations to both emergency department and inpatient settings, for those in a crisis of mental ill-health. We systematically reviewed the literature to create a taxonomy of these brief non-pharmacological interventions, and review their evaluation methods and effectiveness.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review across Cochrane, CINAHL, DARE, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO databases. Studies meeting quality criteria, using Joanna Briggs Institute tools, were eligible. Interventions were categorised, and outcomes synthesised.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were included: 8 randomised controlled trials, 17 quasi-experimental, 11 qualitative studies, and 3 file audits. Taxonomy produced six coherent intervention types: Skills-focussed, Environment-focussed, Special Observation, Psychoeducation, Multicomponent Group and Multicomponent Individual. Despite this, a broad and inconsistent range of outcome measures reflected different outcome priorities and prevented systematic comparison of different types of intervention or meta-analysis. Few brief non-pharmacological interventions had consistent evidential support: sensory modulation rooms consistently improved distress in inpatient settings. Short admissions may reduce suicide attempts and readmission, if accompanied by psychotherapy. Suicide-specific interventions in emergency departments may improve depressive symptoms, but not suicide attempt rates. There was evidence that brief non-pharmacological interventions did not reduce incidence of self-harm on inpatient wards. We found no evidence for frequently used interventions such as no-suicide contracting, special observation or inpatient self-harm interventions.

CONCLUSION

Categorising brief non-pharmacological interventions is feasible, but an evidence base for many is severely limited if not missing. Even when there is evidence, the inconsistency in outcomes often precludes clinicians from making inferences, although some interventions show promise.

Mental health in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

The COVID-19 pandemic caused immediate and far-reaching disruption to society, the economy, and health-care services. We synthesised evidence on the effect of the pandemic on mental health and mental health care in high-income European countries. We included 177 longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional studies comparing prevalence or incidence of mental health problems, mental health symptom severity in people with pre-existing mental health conditions, or mental health service use before versus during the pandemic, or between different timepoints of the pandemic. We found that epidemiological studies reported higher prevalence of some mental health problems during the pandemic compared with before it, but that in most cases this increase reduced over time. Conversely, studies of health records showed reduced incidence of new diagnoses at the start of the pandemic, which further declined during 2020. Mental health service use also declined at the onset of the pandemic but increased later in 2020 and through 2021, although rates of use did not return to pre-pandemic levels for some services. We found mixed patterns of effects of the pandemic on mental health and social outcome for adults already living with mental health conditions.

Short-stay crisis units for mental health patients on crisis care pathways: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Internationally, an increasing proportion of emergency department visits are mental health related. Concurrently, psychiatric wards are often occupied above capacity. Healthcare providers have introduced short-stay, hospital-based crisis units offering a therapeutic space for stabilisation, assessment and appropriate referral. Research lags behind roll-out, and a review of the evidence is urgently needed to inform policy and further introduction of similar units.

AIMS

This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of short-stay, hospital-based mental health crisis units.

METHOD

We searched EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to March 2021. All designs incorporating a control or comparison group were eligible for inclusion, and all effect estimates with a comparison group were extracted and combined meta-analytically where appropriate. We assessed study risk of bias with Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions and Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials.

RESULTS

Data from twelve studies across six countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, The Netherlands, UK and USA) and 67 505 participants were included. Data indicated that units delivered benefits on many outcomes. Units could reduce psychiatric holds (42% after intervention compared with 49.8% before intervention; difference = 7.8%; P < 0.0001) and increase out-patient follow-up care (χ² = 37.42, d.f. = 1; P < 0.001). Meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in length of emergency department stay (by 164.24 min; 95% CI -261.24 to -67.23 min; P < 0.001) and number of in-patient admissions (odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.43-0.68; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-stay mental health crisis units are effective for reducing emergency department wait times and in-patient admissions. Further research should investigate the impact of units on patient experience, and clinical and social outcomes.

Acute psychiatric care: approaches to increasing the range of services and improving access and quality of care

Acute services for mental health crises are very important to service users and their supporters, and consume a substantial share of mental health resources in many countries. However, acute care is often unpopular and sometimes coercive, and the evidence on which models are best for patient experience and outcomes remains surprisingly limited, in part reflecting challenges in conducting studies with people in crisis. Evidence on best ap-proaches to initial assessment and immediate management is particularly lacking, but some innovative models involving extended assessment, brief interventions, and diversifying settings and strategies for providing support are potentially helpful. Acute wards continue to be central in the intensive treatment phase following a crisis, but new approaches need to be developed, evaluated and implemented to reducing coercion, addressing trauma, diversifying treatments and the inpatient workforce, and making decision-making and care collaborative. Intensive home treatment services, acute day units, and community crisis services have supporting evidence in diverting some service users from hospital admission: a greater understanding of how best to implement them in a wide range of contexts and what works best for which service users would be valuable. Approaches to crisis management in the voluntary sector are more flexible and informal: such services have potential to complement and provide valuable learning for statutory sector services, especially for groups who tend to be underserved or disengaged. Such approaches often involve staff with personal experience of mental health crises, who have important potential roles in improving quality of acute care across sectors. Large gaps exist in many low- and middle-income countries, fuelled by poor access to quality mental health care. Responses need to build on a foundation of existing community responses and contextually relevant evidence. The necessity of moving outside formal systems in low-resource settings may lead to wider learning from locally embedded strategies.

Liaison Psychiatry During the Peak of the Coronavirus Pandemic: A Description of Referrals and Interventions

Introduction: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the coronavirus family, a group of viruses that can cause upper respiratory infections in humans. Among other symptoms, it can present as an asymptomatic infection or as a more severe disease requiring hospitalization. Neuropsychiatric symptoms have been described in the acute phase of the illness and as long-term repercussions. We describe the characteristics and interventions in those COVID-19 patients referred to our liaison psychiatry service. Materials and Methods: This is a cross-sectional descriptive study. This study was carried out within the Department of Psychiatry of Cruces University Hospital (Basque Country, Spain). Data from each psychiatric consultation within our consultation-liaison service were consecutively obtained for 1 month from March 17 to April 17, 2020. We recruited data regarding clinical and referral characteristics and psychiatric interventions. Results: Of a total of 721 SARS-CoV-2 hospitalizations, 43 (5.6%) patients were referred to our psychiatry liaison service. The median age was 61 years old, and 62.8% were women. The infectious disease department was the most frequent petitioner (37.2%), and the most common reason for referral was patient anxiety (25.6%). A total of 67.4% of patients received psychological counseling and 55.8% received some pharmacological approach, with a median of 3.7 visits/calls per patient. In addition, 20.3% needed a medication switch due to potential interactions between psychotropics and drugs used to treat SARS-CoV-2. Discussion: In our study, up to 5.6% of SARS-CoV-2 hospitalized patients needed a psychiatric evaluation, especially for anxiety and mood symptoms. Psychosocial factors associated with the pandemic, drugs used to treat the infection, or a direct causative effect of the virus may explain our findings.