Discharge management for patients in Flemish psychiatric hospitals

Coordinating Mental Health Services for People with Serious Mental Illness: A Scoping Review of Transitions from Psychiatric Hospital to Community

Effective coordination as people with serious mental illness (SMI) move between care settings is essential. We aimed to review challenges to care coordination for people with SMI and identify approaches for improving it. Sixteen articles were identified. Two main challenges emerged: people with SMI facing adjustment challenges during transitions and services struggling to provide continuity of care. Effective approaches addressed coordination challenges and resulted in better improvements in service utilization, social functioning and quality of life. Future interventions may benefit from shared decision-making, support for caregivers, and addressing the challenges associated with complicated medication regimes and accessing medications.

Early discharge in acute mental health: A rapid literature review

Long psychiatric hospital stays are unpopular with services users, harmful, and costly. Economic pressures alongside a drive for recovery-orientated care in the least restrictive contexts have led to increasing pressure to discharge people from hospital early. Hospital discharge is, however, complex, stressful, and risky for service users and families. This rapid literature review aimed to assess what is known about early discharge in acute mental health. Searches were conducted in nine bibliographic databases, reference lists, and targeted grey literature sources. Fourteen included papers focused on early discharge in mental health, a population over 18 years with a mental health condition, and reported outcomes on therapeutic care or service delivery. Quality appraisal was undertaken using The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. The meta-summary of the literature found that early discharge was neither provided to all inpatients nor limited to the Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment (CRHT) service model internationally. Early discharge interventions required collaborative working and discharge planning. It was not associated with unplanned readmissions and had a small effect on length of stay. Most studies reported service outcomes, whereas health outcomes were underreported. Professionals and service users were positive about early discharge and service users asked for peer support. Carers preferred hospital or day hospital care suggesting their need for respite. Limitations in the scope, detail, and quality of the evidence about early discharge leave an unclear picture of the components of early discharge as an intervention, its effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, or outcomes.

Development of indicators for a nationwide cross-sectoral quality assurance procedure for mental health care of patients with schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders in Germany

PURPOSE

This paper describes the development of quality indicators for an external statutory and cross-sectoral quality assurance (QA) procedure in the context of the German health care system for adult patients suffering from schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders (F20-F29).

METHODS

Indicators were developed by a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method with 1) the compilation of an indicator register based on a systematic literature search and analyses of health care claims data, 2) the selection of indicators by an expert panel that rated them for relevance and for feasibility regarding implementation. Indicators rated positive for both relevance and feasibility formed the final indicator set.

RESULTS

847 indicators were identified by different searches. Out of these, 56 were selected for the indicator register. During the formal consensus process the expert panel recommended another 45 indicators so that a total of 101 indicators needed to be considered by the panel. Of these, 27 indicators rated both relevant and feasible were included in the final set of indicators: this set included 4 indicators addressing structures, 19 indicators addressing processes and 4 indicators addressing outcomes. 17 indicators of the set will be reported by hospitals and 8 by psychiatric outpatient facilities. Two indicators considered to be cross-sectoral will be reported by both sectors.

DISCUSSION

F20-F29 and its treatment show some specific features which so far have not been addressed by any procedure within the statutory QA program of the German health care system. These features include: Schizophrenia and related disorders a) are potentially chronic conditions, b) are mainly treated in outpatient settings, c) require a multi-professional treatment approach and d) are treated regionally in catchment areas. These specific features in combination with the peculiarities of some legal, political and organizational characteristics of the German health care system and its statutory QA program have strongly influenced the development of indicators. The result was a seemingly "imbalanced" set of indicators with a greater number of indicators for inpatient than for outpatient care despite the fact that clinical reality is otherwise.

CONCLUSIONS

The circumstances of the German health care system that restricted the development of this cross-sectoral QA procedure addressing care for F20-F29 are also most likely to emerge with the development of cross-sectoral QA procedures for other (potentially) chronic conditions that are mainly treated in the outpatient setting by multi-professional teams or by networks of different providers. In order to be able to develop a QA procedure that mirrors the reality of service provision for (potentially) chronic diseases such as F20-F29 we need to explore further current and new data sources, diminish sectoral borders, and implement health care responsibility on the level of catchment areas.