Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of inpatient mental health rehabilitation services provided by the NHS and independent sector (ACER): protocol.

BACKGROUND: Mental health rehabilitation services provide specialist treatment to people with particularly severe and complex problems. In 2018, the Care Quality Commission reported that over half the 4,400 mental health inpatient rehabilitation beds in England were provided by the independent sector. They raised concerns that the length of stay and cost of independent sector care was double that of the NHS and that their services tended to be provided much further from people's homes. However, there has been no research comparing the two sectors and we therefore do not know if these concerns are justified. The ACER Study (Assessing the Clinical and cost-Effectiveness of inpatient mental health Rehabilitation services provided by the NHS and independent sector) is a national programme of research in England, funded from 2021 to 2026, that aims to investigate differences in inpatient mental health rehabilitation provided by the NHS and independent sector in terms of: patient characteristics; service quality; patient, carer and staff experiences; clinical and cost effectiveness. METHODS: ACER comprises a:1) detailed survey of NHS and independent sector inpatient mental health rehabilitation services across England; 2) qualitative investigation of patient, family, staff and commissioners' experiences of the two sectors; 3) cohort study comparing clinical outcomes in the two sectors over 18 months; 4) comprehensive national comparison of inpatient service use in the two sectors, using instrumental variable analysis of routinely collected healthcare data over 18 months; 5) health economic evaluation of the relative cost-effectiveness of the two sectors. In Components 3 and 4, our primary outcome is 'successful rehabilitation' defined as a) being discharged from the inpatient rehabilitation unit without readmission and b) inpatient service use over the 18 months. DISCUSSION: The ACER study will deliver the first empirical comparison of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of NHS and independent sector inpatient mental health rehabilitation services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17381762 retrospectively registered.

Predictors of moving on from mental health supported accommodation in England: national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Around 60 000 people in England live in mental health supported accommodation. There are three main types: residential care, supported housing and floating outreach. Supported housing and floating outreach aim to support service users in moving on to more independent accommodation within 2 years, but there has been little research investigating their effectiveness. AIMS: A 30-month prospective cohort study investigating outcomes for users of mental health supported accommodation. METHOD: We used random sampling, accounting for relevant geographical variation factors, to recruit 87 services (22 residential care, 35 supported housing and 30 floating outreach) and 619 service users (residential care 159, supported housing 251, floating outreach 209) across England. We contacted services every 3 months to investigate the proportion of service users who successfully moved on to more independent accommodation. Multilevel modelling was used to estimate how much of the outcome and cost variations were due to service type and quality, after accounting for service-user characteristics. RESULTS: Overall 243/586 participants successfully moved on (residential care 15/146, supported housing 96/244, floating outreach 132/196). This was most likely for floating outreach service users (versus residential care: odds ratio 7.96, 95% CI 2.92-21.69, P < 0.001; versus supported housing: odds ratio 2.74, 95% CI 1.01-7.41, P < 0.001) and was associated with reduced costs of care and two aspects of service quality: promotion of human rights and recovery-based practice. CONCLUSIONS: Most people do not move on from supported accommodation within the expected time frame. Greater focus on human rights and recovery-based practice may increase service effectiveness.

Intentions and experiences of effective practice in mental health specific supported accommodation services: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Deinstitutionalisation in Europe has led to the development of community-based accommodation for people with mental health problems. The type, setting, and intensity of support provided vary and the costs are substantial. Yet, despite the large investment in these services, there is little clarity on their aims and outcomes or how they are regarded by staff and the clients. METHODS: We interviewed 30 staff and 30 clients from the three main types of supported accommodation in England (residential care, supported housing, floating outreach) to explore their perspectives on the purpose of these services, and the components of care considered most helpful. The interviews were coded and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: There were generally consistent understandings amongst clients and staff across service types on the goals and purposes of supported accommodation services as: building independence and confidence; supporting people with their mental health; and providing safety and stability. We also noted a competing theme of anxiety about the continuity of support when clients move on from a service. Themes on the experience of what aided effective practice centred on: the supportive presence of others; incremental steps to progress; working together to avoid deskilling and dependency; feeling known and personally understood; tailoring support for social and community engagement; and building confidence through encouragement. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide an understanding of the commonalities in service approach, and goals of clients in these services, as well as the facilitators of goal attainment. However, they also highlight a common tension between providing safe and supportive living environments, whilst also promoting independence and facilitating rehabilitative change.

Clinical outcomes and costs for people with complex psychosis; a naturalistic prospective cohort study of mental health rehabilitation service users in England.

BACKGROUND: Mental health rehabilitation services in England focus on people with complex psychosis. This group tend to have lengthy hospital admissions due to the severity of their problems and, despite representing only 10-20 % of all those with psychosis, they absorb 25-50 % of the total mental health budget. Few studies have investigated the effectiveness of these services and there is little evidence available to guide clinicians working in this area. As part of a programme of research into inpatient mental health rehabilitation services, we carried out a prospective study to investigate longitudinal outcomes and costs for patients of these services and the predictors of better outcome. METHOD: Inpatient mental health rehabilitation services across England that scored above average (median) on a standardised quality assessment tool used in a previous national survey were eligible for the study. Unit quality was reassessed and costs of care and patient characteristics rated using standardised tools at recruitment. Multivariable regression modelling was used to investigate the relationship between service quality, patient characteristics and the following clinical outcomes at 12 month follow-up: social function; length of admission in the rehabiliation unit; successful community discharge (without readmission or community placement breakdown) and costs of care. RESULTS: Across England, 50 units participated and 329 patients were followed over 12 months (94 % of those recruited). Service quality was not associated with patients' social function or length of admission (median 16 months) at 12 months but most patients were successfully discharged (56 %) or ready for discharge (14 %), with associated reductions in the costs of care. Factors associated with successful discharge were the recovery orientation of the service (OR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.00-1.08), and patients' activity (OR 1.03, 95 % CI 1.01-1.05) and social skills (OR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.04-1.24) at recruitment. CONCLUSION: Inpatient mental health rehabilitation services in England are able to successfully discharge over half their patients within 18 months, reducing the costs of care for this complex group. Provision of recovery orientated practice that promotes patients' social skills and activities may further enhance the effectiveness of these services.

Development and psychometric properties of the client's assessment of treatment scale for supported accommodation (CAT-SA).

BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are important for evaluating mental health services. Yet, no specific PROM exists for the large and diverse mental health supported accommodation sector. We aimed to produce and validate a PROM specifically for supported accommodation services, by adapting the Client's Assessment of Treatment Scale (CAT) and assessing its psychometric properties in a large sample. METHODS: Focus groups with service users in the three main types of mental health supported accommodation services in the United Kingdom (residential care, supported housing and floating outreach) were conducted to adapt the contents of the original CAT items and assess the acceptability of the modified scale (CAT-SA). The CAT-SA was then administered in a survey to service users across England. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Convergent validity was tested through correlations with subjective quality of life and satisfaction with accommodation, as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: All seven original items of the CAT were regarded as relevant to appraisals of mental health supported accommodation services, with only slight modifications to the wording required. In the survey, data were obtained from 618 clients. The internal consistency of the CAT-SA items was 0.89. Mean CAT-SA scores were correlated with the specific accommodation item on the MANSA (r s = 0.37, p ˂ .001). CONCLUSIONS: The content of the CAT-SA has relevance to service users living in mental health supported accommodation. The findings from our large survey show that the CAT-SA is acceptable across different types of supported accommodation and suggest good psychometric properties. The CAT-SA appears a valid and easy to use PROM for service users in mental health supported accommodation services.

Adaptation of the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care (QuIRC) for use in mental health supported accommodation services (QuIRC-SA).

BACKGROUND: No standardised tools for assessing the quality of specialist mental health supported accommodation services exist. To address this, we adapted the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative care-QuIRC-that was originally developed to assess the quality of longer term inpatient and community based mental health facilities. The QuIRC, which is completed by the service manager and gives ratings of seven domains of care, has good psychometric properties. METHODS: Focus groups with staff of the three main types of supported accommodation in the UK (residential care, supported housing and floating outreach services) were carried out to identify potential amendments to the QuIRC. Additional advice was gained from consultation with three expert panels, two of which comprised service users with lived experience of mental health and supported accommodation services. The amended QuIRC (QuIRC-SA) was piloted with a manager of each of the three service types. Item response variance, inter-rater reliability and internal consistency were assessed in a random sample of 52 services. Factorial structure and discriminant validity were assessed in a larger random sample of 87 services. RESULTS: The QuIRC-SA comprised 143 items of which only 18 items showed a narrow range of response and five items had poor inter-rater reliability. The tool showed good discriminant validity, with supported housing services generally scoring higher than the other two types of supported accommodation on most domains. Exploratory factor analysis showed that the QuIRC-SA items loaded onto the domains to which they had been allocated. CONCLUSIONS: The QuIRC-SA is the first standardised tool for quality assessment of specialist mental health supported accommodation services. Its psychometric properties mean that it has potential for use in research as well as audit and quality improvement programmes. A web based application is being developed to make it more accessible which will produce a printable report for the service manager about the performance of their service, comparison data for similar services and suggestions on how to improve service quality.

Barriers to the sustainability of an intervention designed to improve patient engagement within NHS mental health rehabilitation units: a qualitative study nested within a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We undertook a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a staff training intervention to improve patient engagement in activities in inpatient mental health rehabilitation units. Concurrently, we undertook a qualitative study to investigate the experiences of staff within the intervention units and the contextual issues that may have influenced the effectiveness of the intervention. METHOD: We conducted focus groups with staff working in the inpatient units that received the intervention, sampled using a maximum variation strategy. RESULTS: The intervention was accepted by staff. However, the skills gained, and changes to the unit's processes and structures that were agreed with the intervention team were not sustained after they left. The main reasons for this were a) external factors (economic recession, resource limitations); b) organisation level factors (lack of senior staff support; competing priorities); c) limitations of the intervention itself (length of intensive training period; reinforcement of skills). CONCLUSION: This study illustrates some of the inter-related factors which operate at different levels within and outside of NHS organisations that may impact on the success of complex interventions. These factors need to be considered when designing interventions to ensure adequate buy-in from senior staff. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25898179 (Registered 23 April 2010).

Study protocol: cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of a staff training intervention in inpatient mental health rehabilitation units in increasing service users' engagement in activities.

BACKGROUND: This study focuses on people with complex and severe mental health problems who require inpatient rehabilitation. The majority have a diagnosis of schizophrenia whose recovery has been delayed due to non-response to first-line treatments, cognitive impairment, negative symptoms and co-existing problems such as substance misuse. These problems contribute to major impairments in social and everyday functioning necessitating lengthy admissions and high support needs on discharge to the community. Engagement in structured activities reduces negative symptoms of psychosis and may lead to improvement in function, but no trials have been conducted to test the efficacy of interventions that aim to achieve this. METHODS/DESIGN: This study aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a staff training intervention to increase service users' engagement in activities. This is a single-blind, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial involving 40 inpatient mental health rehabilitation units across England. Units are randomised on an equal basis to receive either standard care or a "hands-on", manualised staff training programme comprising three distinct phases (predisposing, enabling and reinforcing) delivered by a small team of psychiatrists, occupational therapists, service users and activity workers. The primary outcome is service user engagement in activities 12 months after randomisation, assessed using a standardised measure. Secondary outcomes include social functioning and costs and cost-effectiveness of care. DISCUSSION: The study will provide much needed evidence for a practical staff training intervention that has potential to improve service user functioning, reducing the need for hospital treatment and supporting successful community discharge. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials (Ref ISRCTN25898179).

Vitamin D supplementation compared to placebo in people with First Episode psychosis - Neuroprotection Design (DFEND): a protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing their first episode of psychosis are often deficient in vitamin D. Observational studies have reported an association between low vitamin D concentrations and poorer subsequent health outcomes in psychosis. A vitamin D deficiency in neonates and children has been linked to a later increased risk of schizophrenia and psychotic-like experiences. This trial aims to examine the effect of high-dose vitamin D supplementation on outcomes in early psychosis. We hypothesise that vitamin D supplementation will be associated with better mental health outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The DFEND study is a multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group trial of vitamin D supplementation in people with early psychosis. Patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of functional psychosis will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 120,000 IU/month of vitamin D (cholecalciferol) or a matched placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome is the total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score at the 6-month follow-up for all patients. Secondary outcomes include assessment of mood (Calgary Depression Scale), general function (Global Assessment of Functioning), cardiovascular risk (body mass index, waist circumference, C-reactive protein, cholesterol and HbA1c) and vitamin D levels at the 6-month follow-up. Additionally, 3- and 6-month total PANSS scores will be analysed for those with inadequate vitamin D levels at the baseline. DISCUSSION: The DFEND study is the first trial to examine whether vitamin D supplementation in early psychosis is associated with better mental health outcomes. The findings of this study may help to resolve the clinical equipoise regarding the benefits and cost-effectiveness of routine vitamin D supplementation in people with psychosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12424842. Registered on 25 February 2015.

Feasibility Randomised Trial Comparing Two Forms of Mental Health Supported Accommodation (Supported Housing and Floating Outreach); a Component of the QuEST (Quality and Effectiveness of Supported Tenancies) Study.

Background: Mental health supported accommodation services are implemented across England, usually organised into a 'step-down' care pathway that requires the individual to repeatedly move as they gain skills and confidence for more independent living. There have been no trials comparing the effectiveness of different types of supported accommodation, but two widely used models (supported housing and floating outreach) have been found to provide similar support. We aimed to assess the feasibility of conducting a large-scale trial comparing these two models. Methods: Individually randomised, parallel group feasibility trial in three regions of England (North London, East London, and Cheltenham and Gloucestershire). We aimed to recruit 60 participants in 15 months, referred to supported accommodation, randomly allocated on an equal basis to receive either a local supported housing or floating outreach service. We assessed referrals to the trial, participants recruited, attrition, time from recruitment to moving into either type of supported accommodation, and feasibility of masking. We conducted a process evaluation to examine our results further. Results: We screened 1,432 potential participants, of whom 17 consented to participate, with 8 agreeing to randomisation (of whom 1 was lost to attrition) and 9 participating in naturalistic follow-up. Our process evaluation indicated that the main obstacle to recruitment was staff and service user preferences for certain types of supported accommodation or for specific services. Staff also felt that randomisation compromised their professional judgement. Conclusions: Our results do not support investment in a large-scale trial in England at this time. Trial registration: UK CRN Portfolio database, Trial ID: ISRCTN19689576. Trial funding: National Institute of Health Research (RP-PG-0707-10093).

Quality of life, autonomy, satisfaction, and costs associated with mental health supported accommodation services in England: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Little research has been done into the effectiveness of mental health supported accommodation services. We did a national survey to investigate provision and costs of services and assess service user quality of life and outcomes across England. METHODS: We randomly sampled three types of services from 14 nationally representative regions-residential care, supported housing, and floating outreach-and recruited up to ten service users per service. Service quality and costs and service users' quality of life, autonomy, and satisfaction with care were assessed in a standardised manner with validated tools and compared by multilevel modelling. FINDINGS: 619 service users were recruited from 22 residential care, 35 supported housing, and 30 floating outreach services. Those in residential care and supported housing had more severe mental health problems than those in floating outreach. 348 (57%) were assessed as being at risk of severe self-neglect and 229 (37%) as being vulnerable to exploitation in the previous 2 years. Residential care was most expensive but provided for people with the greatest needs. The mean annual budget was £466 687 for residential care (range £276 000-777 920), compared with £365 452 for supported housing (£174 877-818 000), and £172 114 for floating outreach (£17 126-491 692). Quality of care was best in supported housing. People in supported housing and floating outreach were more socially included but experienced more crime than those in residential care. After adjustment for service quality and service user sociodemographic and clinical factors, quality of life was similar for service users in residential care and supported housing (mean difference -0·138, 95% CI -0·402 to 0·126, p=0·306) and lower for those in floating outreach than in residential care (-0·424, -0·734 to -0·114, p=0·007). However, autonomy was greater for those in supported housing than for those in residential care (0·145, 0·010 to 0·279, p=0.035). Satisfaction with care was similar across services. INTERPRETATION: Supported housing might be cost-effective, but the benefits need to be weighed against the risks associated with increased autonomy. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Clinical effectiveness of a staff training intervention in mental health inpatient rehabilitation units designed to increase patients' engagement in activities (the Rehabilitation Effectiveness for Activities for Life [REAL] study): single-blind, cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mental health inpatient rehabilitation services focus on people with complex psychosis who have, for example, treatment-refractory symptoms, cognitive impairment, and severe negative symptoms, which impair functioning and require lengthy admission. Engagement in activities could lead to improvement in negative symptoms and function, but few trials have been done. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a staff training intervention to increase patients' engagement in activities. METHODS: We did a single-blind, two-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial in 40 mental health inpatient rehabilitation units across England. Units were randomly allocated to either a manual-based staff training programme delivered by a small intervention team (intervention group, n=20) or standard care (control group, n=20). The primary outcome was patients' engagement in activities 12 months after randomisation, measured with the time use diary. With this measure, both the degree of engagement in an activity and its complexity are recorded four times a day for a week, rated on a scale of 0-4 for every period (maximum score of 112). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Random-effects models were used to compare outcomes between study groups. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by combining service costs with the primary outcome. This study is registered with Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN25898179). FINDINGS: Patients' engagement in activities did not differ between study groups (coefficient 1·44, 95% CI -1·35 to 4·24). An extra £101 was needed to achieve a 1% increase in patients' engagement in activities with the study intervention. INTERPRETATION: Our training intervention did not increase patients' engagement in activities after 12 months of follow-up. This failure could be attributable to inadequate implementation of the intervention, a high turnover of patients in the intervention units, competing priorities on staff time, high levels of patients' morbidity, and ceiling effects because of the high quality of standard care delivered. Further studies are needed to identify interventions that can improve outcomes for people with severe and complex psychosis. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.