Economic Evaluation of the Emergency Department After Implementation of an Emergency Psychiatric Assessment, Treatment, and Healing Unit

The effect of psychiatric decision unit services on inpatient admissions and mental health presentations in emergency departments: an interrupted time series analysis from two cities and one rural area in England

AIMS

High-quality evidence is lacking for the impact on healthcare utilisation of short-stay alternatives to psychiatric inpatient services for people experiencing acute and/or complex mental health crises (known in England as psychiatric decision units [PDUs]). We assessed the extent to which changes in psychiatric hospital and emergency department (ED) activity were explained by implementation of PDUs in England using a quasi-experimental approach.

METHODS

We conducted an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis of weekly aggregated data pre- and post-PDU implementation in one rural and two urban sites using segmented regression, adjusting for temporal and seasonal trends. Primary outcomes were changes in the number of voluntary inpatient admissions to (acute) adult psychiatric wards and number of ED adult mental health-related attendances in the 24 months post-PDU implementation compared to that in the 24 months pre-PDU implementation.

RESULTS

The two PDUs (one urban and one rural) with longer (average) stays and high staff-to-patient ratios observed post-PDU decreases in the pattern of weekly voluntary psychiatric admissions relative to pre-PDU trend (Rural: -0.45%/week, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.78%, -0.12%; Urban: -0.49%/week, 95% CI = -0.73%, -0.25%); PDU implementation in each was associated with an estimated 35-38% reduction in total voluntary admissions in the post-PDU period. The (urban) PDU with the highest throughput, lowest staff-to-patient ratio and shortest average stay observed a 20% (-20.4%, CI = -29.7%, -10.0%) level reduction in mental health-related ED attendances post-PDU, although there was little impact on long-term trend. Pooled analyses across sites indicated a significant reduction in the number of voluntary admissions following PDU implementation (-16.6%, 95% CI = -23.9%, -8.5%) but no significant (long-term) trend change (-0.20%/week, 95% CI = -0.74%, 0.34%) and no short- (-2.8%, 95% CI = -19.3%, 17.0%) or long-term (0.08%/week, 95% CI = -0.13, 0.28%) effects on mental health-related ED attendances. Findings were largely unchanged in secondary (ITS) analyses that considered the introduction of other service initiatives in the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of PDUs was associated with an immediate reduction of voluntary psychiatric inpatient admissions. The extent to which PDUs change long-term trends of voluntary psychiatric admissions or impact on psychiatric presentations at ED may be linked to their configuration. PDUs with a large capacity, short length of stay and low staff-to-patient ratio can positively impact ED mental health presentations, while PDUs with longer length of stay and higher staff-to-patient ratios have potential to reduce voluntary psychiatric admissions over an extended period. Taken as a whole, our analyses suggest that when establishing a PDU, consideration of the primary crisis-care need that underlies the creation of the unit is key.

A Qualitative Assessment of Barriers and Proposed Interventions to Improve Acute Agitation Management for Children With Mental and Behavioral Health Conditions in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Mental health visits to the emergency department (ED) by children are rising in the United States, and acute agitation during these visits presents safety risks to patients and staff.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess barriers and strategies for providing high-quality care to children who experience acute agitation in the ED.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 6 ED physicians, 6 ED nurses, 6 parents, and 6 adolescents at high risk for developing agitation. We asked participants about their experiences with acute agitation care in the ED, barriers and facilitators to providing high-quality care, and proposed interventions. Interviews were coded and analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Participants discussed identifying risk factors for acute agitation, worrying about safety and the risk of injury, feeling moral distress, and shifting the culture toward patient-centered, trauma-informed care. Barriers and facilitators included using a standardized care pathway, identifying environmental barriers and allocating resources, partnering with the family and child, and communicating among team members. Nine interventions were proposed: opening a behavioral observation unit with dedicated staff and space, asking screening questions to identify risk of agitation, creating personalized care plans in the electronic health record, using a standardized agitation severity scale, implementing a behavioral response team, providing safe activities and environmental modifications, improving the handoff process, educating staff, and addressing bias and inequities.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding barriers can inform solutions to improve care for children who experience acute agitation in the ED. The perspectives of families and patients should be considered when designing interventions to improve care.

Evaluating mental health decision units in acute care pathways (DECISION): a quasi-experimental, qualitative and health economic evaluation

Background

People experiencing mental health crises in the community often present to emergency departments and are admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Because of the demands on emergency department and inpatient care, psychiatric decision units have emerged to provide a more suitable environment for assessment and signposting to appropriate care.

Objectives

The study aimed to ascertain the structure and activities of psychiatric decision units in England and to provide an evidence base for their effectiveness, costs and benefits, and optimal configuration.

Design

This was a mixed-methods study comprising survey, systematic review, interrupted time series, synthetic control study, cohort study, qualitative interview study and health economic evaluation, using a critical interpretive synthesis approach.

Setting

The study took place in four mental health National Health Service trusts with psychiatric decision units, and six acute hospital National Health Service trusts where emergency departments referred to psychiatric decision units in each mental health trust.

Participants

Participants in the cohort study (n = 2110) were first-time referrals to psychiatric decision units for two 5-month periods from 1 October 2018 and 1 October 2019, respectively. Participants in the qualitative study were first-time referrals to psychiatric decision units recruited within 1 month of discharge (n = 39), members of psychiatric decision unit clinical teams (n = 15) and clinicians referring to psychiatric decision units (n = 19).

Outcomes

Primary mental health outcome in the interrupted time series and cohort study was informal psychiatric hospital admission, and in the synthetic control any psychiatric hospital admission; primary emergency department outcome in the interrupted time series and synthetic control was mental health attendance at emergency department. Data for the interrupted time series and cohort study were extracted from electronic patient record in mental health and acute trusts; data for the synthetic control study were obtained through NHS Digital from Hospital Episode Statistics admitted patient care for psychiatric admissions and Hospital Episode Statistics Accident and Emergency for emergency department attendances. The health economic evaluation used data from all studies. Relevant databases were searched for controlled or comparison group studies of hospital-based mental health assessments permitting overnight stays of a maximum of 1 week that measured adult acute psychiatric admissions and/or mental health presentations at emergency department. Selection, data extraction and quality rating of studies were double assessed. Narrative synthesis of included studies was undertaken and meta-analyses were performed where sufficient studies reported outcomes.

Results

Psychiatric decision units have the potential to reduce informal psychiatric admissions, mental health presentations and wait times at emergency department. Cost savings are largely marginal and do not offset the cost of units. First-time referrals to psychiatric decision units use more inpatient and community care and less emergency department-based liaison psychiatry in the months following the first visit. Psychiatric decision units work best when configured to reduce either informal psychiatric admissions (longer length of stay, higher staff-to-patient ratio, use of psychosocial interventions), resulting in improved quality of crisis care or demand on the emergency department (higher capacity, shorter length of stay). To function well, psychiatric decision units should be integrated into the crisis care pathway alongside a range of community-based support.

Limitations

The availability and quality of data imposed limitations on the reliability of some analyses.

Future work

Psychiatric decision units should not be commissioned with an expectation of short-term financial return on investment but, if appropriately configured, they can provide better quality of care for people in crisis who would not benefit from acute admission or reduce pressure on emergency department.

Study registration

The systematic review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews as CRD42019151043.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/49/70) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Integrating Psychiatric Services in the Emergency Room to Improve Patient Care by Using Quality Improvement Methods

ABSTRACT

Prolonged length of stay in emergency departments (EDs) for patients with a psychiatric chief complaint is a widespread problem. Prolonged stays can lead to adverse outcomes and poor quality of care. We sought to improve quality of care for patients in the medical ED who needed psychiatric care. To identify the areas of weakness, we queried the ED staff via an online survey about the perception of the challenges working with our Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program (CPEP), which is located adjacent to and works closely with the medical ED providing psychiatric consultation. We identified several action steps and used the Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology for implementation. We reported a reduction in time to complete consultations and improved communication between CPEP and the medical ED staff.

Service use preceding and following first referral for psychiatric emergency care at a short-stay crisis unit: A cohort study across three cities and one rural area in England

BACKGROUND

Internationally, hospital-based short-stay crisis units have been introduced to provide a safe space for stabilisation and further assessment for those in psychiatric crisis. The units typically aim to reduce inpatient admissions and psychiatric presentations to emergency departments.

AIMS

To assess changes to service use following a service user's first visit to a unit, characterise the population accessing these units and examine equality of access to the units.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study design (ISCTRN registered; 53431343) compared service use for the 9 months preceding and following a first visit to a short-stay crisis unit at three cities and one rural area in England. Included individuals first visited a unit in the 6 months between 01/September/2020 and 28/February/2021.

RESULTS

The prospective cohort included 1189 individuals aged 36 years on average, significantly younger (by 5-13 years) than the population of local service users (<.001). Seventy percent were White British and most were without a psychiatric diagnosis (55%-82% across sites). The emergency department provided the largest single source of referrals to the unit (42%), followed by the Crisis and Home Treatment Team (20%). The use of most mental health services, including all types of admission and community mental health services was increased post discharge. Social-distancing measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic were in place for slightly over 50% of the follow-up period. Comparison to a pre-COVID cohort of 934 individuals suggested that the pandemic had no effect on the majority of service use variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-stay crisis units are typically accessed by a young population, including those who previously were unknown to mental health services, who proceed to access a broader range of mental health services following discharge.

A Quality Measurement Framework for Emergency Department Care of Psychiatric Emergencies

As a primary access point for crisis psychiatric care, the emergency department (ED) is uniquely positioned to improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients with psychiatric emergencies. Quality measurement is the first key step in understanding the gaps and variations in emergency psychiatric care to guide quality improvement initiatives. Our objective was to develop a quality measurement framework informed by a comprehensive review and gap analysis of quality measures for ED psychiatric care. We conducted a systematic literature review and convened an expert panel in emergency medicine, psychiatry, and quality improvement to consider if and how existing quality measures evaluate the delivery of emergency psychiatric care in the ED setting. The expert panel reviewed 48 measures, of which 5 were standardized, and 3 had active National Quality Forum endorsement. Drawing from the measure appraisal, we developed a quality measurement framework with specific structural, process, and outcome measures across the ED care continuum. This framework can help shape an emergency medicine roadmap for future clinical quality improvement initiatives, research, and advocacy work designed to improve outcomes for patients presenting with psychiatric emergencies.

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.

The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 on US Emergency Departments

Behavioral emergencies in the United States have been increasing, with some studies reporting a doubling in the number of people experiencing symptoms related to mental health conditions, although overall visits to US emergency departments (EDs) decreased during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic caused many people to avoid health care facilities, including EDs, even if they may have otherwise sought emergency care, and was associated with increases in new behavioral health diagnoses. Measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 led to people limiting their in-person contact with others, likely exacerbating preexisting mental health issues.

Emergency psychiatric assessment, treatment, and healing (EmPATH) unit decreases hospital admission for patients presenting with suicidal ideation in rural America

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to evaluate the impact of an emergency psychiatric assessment, treatment, and healing (EmPATH) unit in the emergency department (ED) on hospital admissions, ED length of stay, and 30-day follow-up for patients presenting with suicidal ideation or attempt.

METHODS

This study was a before-and-after analysis of introducing the EmPATH unit within a Midwestern academic medical center on outcomes of adult patients (≥18 years) presenting with suicidal ideation or suicidal attempt. The primary outcome in this study was the change in proportion of inpatient psychiatric admission of suicidal patients presenting to the ED before and after implementation of the EmPATH unit. Secondary outcomes compared were changes in proportion of any admission, incomplete admission defined as discharge from the ED after admission request placed, outpatient follow-up, return ED visits within 30 days of admission, and ED boarding time. Association between the EmPATH unit implementation and categorical outcomes were determined using log-binomial regression to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Continuous outcomes were log-transformed and generalized estimating equations were used to examine as the mean difference by time period.

RESULTS

There were 962 patients presenting with suicidal ideation (n = 435 before EmPATH unit, n = 527 after EmPATH unit). Compared to the pre-EmPATH-unit period, there was a reduction in psychiatric admission (RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.56), any admission (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.73), incomplete admission (RR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.43), and 30-day return to the ED (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.98). ED boarding time among admitted patients was reduced by approximately two-thirds both in admitted patients (RR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.39) and among those with incomplete admissions (RR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.61). There was a 60% increase in a 30-day follow-up care established at the time of discharge (RR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.40 to 1.82).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of the EmPATH unit has improved management of patients presenting to the ED with suicidal attempts/ideation by reducing ED boarding and unnecessary admissions and establishing post-ED follow-up care.