The bed requirement inventory: a simple measure to estimate the need for a psychiatric bed

Delayed discharge in inpatient psychiatric care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Delayed discharge is problematic. It is financially costly and can create barriers to delivering best patient care, by preventing return to usual functioning and delaying admissions of others in need. This systematic review aimed to collate existing evidence on delayed discharge in psychiatric inpatient settings and to develop understanding of factors and outcomes of delays in these services.

METHODS

A search of relevant literature published between 2002 and 2022 was conducted on Pubmed, PsycInfo and Embase. Studies of any design, which published data on delayed discharge from psychiatric inpatient care in high income countries were included. Studies examining child and adolescent, general medical or forensic settings were excluded. A narrative synthesis method was utilised. Quality of research was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

RESULTS

Eighteen studies from England, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and Norway met the inclusion criteria. Six main reasons for delayed discharge were identified: (1) accommodation needs, (2) challenges securing community or rehabilitation support, (3) funding difficulties, (4) family/carer factors, (5) forensic considerations and (6) person being out of area. Some demographic and clinical factors were also found to relate to delays, such as having a diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, cognitive impairment, and increased service input prior to admission. Being unemployed and socially isolated were also linked to delays. Only one study commented on consequences of delays for patients, finding they experienced feelings of lack of choice and control. Four studies examined consequences on services, identifying high financial costs.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the findings suggest there are multiple interlinked factors relevant in delayed discharge that should be considered in practice and policy. Suggestions for future research are discussed, including investigating delayed discharge in other high-income countries, examining delayed discharge from child and forensic psychiatric settings, and exploring consequences of delays on patients and staff. We suggest that future research be consistent in terms used to define delayed discharge, to enhance the clarity of the evidence base.

REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER ON PROSPERO

292515.

DATE OF REGISTRATION

9th December 2021.

Horizontal equity and mental health care: a study of priority ratings by clinicians and teams at outpatient clinics

BACKGROUND

In Norway, admission teams at Community Mental Health Centres (CMHCs) assess referrals from General Practitioners (GPs), and classify the referrals into priority groups according to treatment needs, as defined in the Act of Patient Rights. In this study, we analyzed classification of similar referrals to determine the reliability of classification into priority groups (i.e., horizontal equity).

METHODS

Twenty anonymous case vignettes based on representative referrals were classified by 42 admission team members at 16 CMHCs in the South-East Health Region of Norway. All clinicians were experienced, and were responsible for priority setting at their centres. The classifications were first performed independently by the 42 clinicians (i.e., individual rating), and then evaluated utilizing team consensus within each CMHC (i.e., team rating). Interrater reliability was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) while the reliability of rating across raters and units (generalizability) were estimated using generalizability analysis.

RESULTS

The ICCs (2.1 single measure, absolute agreement) varied between 0.40 and 0.51 using individual ratings and between 0.39 and 0.58 using team ratings. Our findings suggest a fair (low) degree of interrater reliability, and no improvement of team ratings was observed when compared to individual ratings. The generalizability analysis, for one rater within each unit, yields a generalizability coefficient of 0.50 and a dependability coefficient of 0.53 (D study). These findings confirm that the reliability of ratings across raters and across units is low. Finally, the degree of inconsistency, for an average measurement, appears to be higher within units than between units (G study).

CONCLUSION

The low interrater reliability and generalizability found in our study suggests that horizontal equity to mental health services is not ensured with respect to priority. Priority -setting in teams provides no significant improvement compared to individual rating, and the additional use of these resources may be questionable. Improved guidelines, tutorials, training and calibration of clinicians may be utilized to improve the reliability of priority-setting.

Antipsychotic prescribing in Black and White hospitalised patients

Ethnicity may affect the prescribing of antipsychotic treatment. Previous UK studies conducted in south London have found few differences in antipsychotic prescribing quality for Black and White patients. This larger multicentre study examined the effect of ethnicity on antipsychotic prescribing quality in areas serving the largest proportions of Black patients in the UK. A cross-sectional survey with collection of multiple confounding factors potentially affecting outcomes in eight secondary care units in England over a three month period. Participants were Black or White inpatients prescribed regular antipsychotics on the day of the survey. Antipsychotic dose (expressed as a percentage of licensed maximum), high dose (being prescribed antipsychotic medication above maximum dose), polypharmacy (more than one antipsychotic prescribed), type (typical or atypical antipsychotic) and costs were the main outcome measures. Data were collected for 938 patients. There were no significant differences in any outcome by ethnicity: dose (adjusted percentage difference 0.97 [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.28, 6.22], p = 0.72); high dose (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.98 [CI 0.63, 1.51], p = 0.92); polypharmacy prescribed (AOR 1.15 [CI 0.87, 1.51], p = 0.33); polypharmacy administered (AOR 1.08 [CI 0.78, 1.49], p = 0.66); use of typical antipsychotics (AOR 1.25 [CI 0.87, 1.79], p = 0.22); and cost (adjusted effect size 1.75 [CI -9.81, 13.31], p = 0.77). Antipsychotic prescribing practice did not differ between Black and White patients.