Audit of discharges from a regional service in the United Kingdom

Discharge destinations for young people with a first episode of psychosis after attending an early intervention for psychosis service

OBJECTIVE

Early intervention for psychosis services result in superior outcomes in the domains of symptomatic and functional recovery, hospitalisation and employment compared to standard services; however, the optimal duration of care with these services is unknown. Knowledge on the discharge destinations, specifically the proportion discharged to high- and low-intensity services, could provide insights into the proportion of who may require a longer tenure of care. This study aimed to determine (1) the discharge destinations from early intervention for psychosis services and (2) baseline and intra-episode factors associated with discharge to the secondary care/adult mental health service.

METHODOLOGY

This study was conducted at the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre in Melbourne and included all young people treated by the service with a first episode of psychosis over a 6-year period. Discharge destinations were categorised according to high-intensity services, namely, secondary mental health care, or lower intensity services, such as private practitioners or primary care.

RESULTS

A total of 1101 young people with a first episode of psychosis were included in the study, of whom 58.8% were male and the median age was 20.0 years (interquartile range: 17-22). After a median of 95.4 weeks (interquartile range: 66.7-105.7), 36.6% were discharged to the adult mental health services, which was associated with being not in employment, education or training at presentation (odds ratio = 1.71, 95% confidence interval [1.23, 2.37]); experiencing a relapse (odds ratio = 1.76, 95% confidence interval [1.24, 2.49]); and being admitted to a mental health unit (odds ratio = 3.98, 95% confidence interval [2.61, 6.09]). Young people who lived with their parents were less likely to be discharged to secondary care services (odds ratio = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [0.37, 0.73]), as were those who were achieving symptomatic remission within 12 weeks (odds ratio = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [0.43, 0.83]). Migrant status and the duration of untreated psychosis were not associated with discharge destination.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that there is a sizable, identifiable minority who may benefit from a longer episode of care with early intervention for psychosis services.

Neglecting the care of people with schizophrenia: here we go again

Specialist early intervention teams consider clinician-patient engagement and continuity of care to be a driving philosophy behind the treatment they provide to people who have developed schizophrenia or a related psychotic illness. In almost all countries where this service model has been implemented there is a dearth of available data about what is happening to patients following time-limited treatment. Information on discharge pathways in England indicates that some early intervention specialists are discharging most of their patients from all psychiatric services after only 2 or 3 years of input. Some ex-patients will be living in a state of torment and neglect due to an untreated psychosis. In the UK, general practitioners should refuse to accept these discharge pathways for patients with insight-impairing mental illnesses.

Barriers and facilitators to "moving on" from early intervention in psychosis services

AIM

Transition from early intervention in psychosis services (EIPS) to ongoing care can be challenging for staff and service users. This study aims to explore staff views of the barriers and facilitators to transition from EIPS.

METHODS

Eighteen EIPS staff were interviewed about their experiences of discharge processes and interviews were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified: (1) "nowhere to go": illustrated how service users remained in EIPS because other teams lacked capacity to take them; (2) "collaboration between agencies" highlights the challenges of working across boundaries; (3) "therapeutic relationships": reflects the loss service users and staff experienced at discharge; (4) "advanced planning" relates to the necessity for advanced planning and service user empowerment to facilitate the discharge process.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first in-depth exploration of EIPS staff views on discharge processes. To ensure seamless transitions throughout care pathways, services need better inter-agency collaboration and more adequate preparation for transition.

Discharge pathways and relapse following treatment from early intervention in psychosis services

BACKGROUND

Early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services are the dominant service model in the treatment of first-episode psychosis. They are a time-limited intervention and little is known about discharge destinations and outcomes once EIP treatment has concluded.

AIMS

To understand discharge pathways and predictors of relapse in an EIP service.

METHOD

We collected data on all patients with an electronic health record treated by EIP services in Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust in the UK between 12 January 2006 and 7 March 2017 (n = 701). Our primary outcomes were discharge destination at end of treatment and relapse.

RESULTS

Most patients (83.5%) were discharged to primary care. Transfer to secondary care was associated with previous in-patient admissions (odds ratio (OR) = 1.92, 95% CI 1.54-2.39) and longer EIP treatment (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.06). Relapse rate was highest shortly after leaving EIP services. Relapse was associated with transfer to secondary care (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.75, 95% CI 1.75-4.31), higher deprivation (HR = 1.03, 95% CI, 1.01-1.05), a substance misuse disorder (HR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.01-3.26) and a comorbid diagnosis of a personality disorder (HR = 2.96, 95% CI 1.39-6.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients treated by the EIP service in Oxfordshire did not receive ongoing mental healthcare from secondary mental health services. We identified high deprivation and those with substance misuse problems or personality disorders as EIP populations with a high risk of relapse.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

None.