Clinical and organizational factors predicting readmission for mental health patients across Italy.

PURPOSE: The aims of our study are: to explore rehospitalization in mental health services across Italian regions, Local Health Districts (LHDs), and hospitals; to examine the predictive power of different clinical and organizational factors. METHODS: The data set included adult patients resident in Italy discharged from a general hospital episode with a main psychiatric diagnosis in 2012. Independent variables at the individual, hospital, LHD, and region levels were used. Outcome variables were individual-level readmission and LHD-level readmission rate to any hospital at 1-year follow-up. The association with readmission of each variable was assessed through both single- and multi-level logistic regression; descriptive statistics were provided to assess geographical variation. Relevance of contextual effects was investigated through a series of random-effects regressions without covariates. RESULTS: The national 1-year readmission rate was 43.0%, with a cross-regional coefficient of variation of 6.28%. Predictors of readmission were: admission in the same LHD as residence, psychotic disorder, higher length of stay (LoS), higher rate of public beds in the LHD; protective factors were: young age, involuntary admission, and intermediate number of public healthcare staff at the LHD level. Contextual factors turned out to affect readmission only to a limited degree. CONCLUSIONS: Homogeneity of readmission rates across regions, LHDs, hospitals, and groups of patients may be considered as a positive feature in terms of equity of the mental healthcare system. Our results highlight that readmission is mainly determined by individual-level factors. Future research is needed to better explore the relationship between readmission and LoS, discharge decision, and resource availability.

Emotional, cognitive and social factors of antimicrobial prescribing: can antimicrobial stewardship intervention be effective without addressing psycho-social factors?

There is increasing evidence that psycho-social factors can influence antimicrobial prescribing practice in hospitals and the community, and represent potential barriers to antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Clinicians are conditioned both by emotional and cognitive factors based on fear, uncertainty, a set of beliefs, risk perception and cognitive bias, and by interpersonal factors established through social norms and peer and doctor-patient communication. However, a gap is emerging between research and practice, and no stewardship recommendation addresses the most appropriate human resource allocation or modalities to account for psycho-social determinants of prescribing. There is a need for translation of the evidence available from human behaviour studies to the design and implementation of stewardship interventions and policies at hospital and community levels. The integration of behaviour experts into multidisciplinary stewardship teams seems essential to positively impact on prescribers' communication and decision-making competencies, and reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.

Patient empowerment in risk management: a mixed-method study to explore mental health professionals' perspective.

BACKGROUND: In the last years, patients' empowerment has been increasingly recognized as a crucial dimension of patient-centered healthcare and patient safety. Nevertheless, little work has been done so far in the field of patient safety to investigate strategies for empowering psychiatric patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify, by using focus groups, whether and how psychiatric patients' empowerment can improve risk management according to the perspective of healthcare providers (HPs). METHODS: A mixed-method approach composed of a qualitative data collection method (i.e., focus groups) and a quantitative analysis technique (i.e., inductive content analysis) was applied. HPs working in mental health settings shared their perspectives on psychiatric patients' empowerment in risk management. After the transcription of the audio-taped discussions and the subsequent development of a hierarchical four-level coding system (strategy versus critical issue, thematic area, category, subcategory), two independent raters codified the transcripts and synthesized the content. Absolute frequencies are reported for quantitative data. RESULTS: Twelve focus groups consisting of six to ten participants, each with an overall sample size of 95 participants (65 women; average age ± SD 47 ± 9 yrs), were enrolled. A total of 1252 participants' verbal contributions (i.e., units of analysis) were assessed. Strategies and critical issues (Level 1) were mentioned almost equally (52 and 48%, respectively) by the HPs. Most of the contributions at Level 2 referred to the thematic areas Treatment and Cure (69%) and Emergency Management (21%). In the area Treatment and Cure, the category Therapeutic Compliance (Level 3) was discussed in one third of all contributions. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that HPs consider patients as crucial partners in risk management and expect them to play a key role in actively enhancing safety. Policy makers should be aware that risk management in mental health settings particularly relies on the therapeutic relationship between HPs and patients. Therefore, allocating sufficient human and financial resources to mental health care aiming to further support the relationship between patients and HPs is of utmost importance.

Mental health service users' experiences of psychiatric re-hospitalisation - an explorative focus group study in six European countries.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric re-hospitalisation is considered costly and disruptive to individuals. The perspective of the mental health service user is largely unexplored in literature. The purpose of our study was to explore service users' experiences of psychiatric re-hospitalisation across six countries in Europe. METHOD: Eight focus groups were conducted in Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Italy, Austria and Norway. RESULTS: A total of 55 service users participated in the study. All participants had been in receipt of mental health services for at least 1 year, and had experienced more than one psychiatric hospitalisation. The experience of re-hospitalisation was considered: (1) less traumatising than the first hospitalisation, (2) to be necessary, and a relief, (3) occurring by default and without progress, (4) part of the recovery process. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric re-hospitalisation was considered inevitable by the study participants, in both positive and negative terms. Striking similarities in service user experiences were found across all of the six countries, the first experience of psychiatric hospitalisation emerging as especially significant. Findings indicate the need for further action in order to develop more recovery and person-centred approaches within hospital care. For psychiatric inpatient care to be a positive part of the recovery process, further knowledge on what therapeutic action during the hospital stay would be beneficial, such as therapy, activities and integration with other services.

Pre-discharge factors predicting readmissions of psychiatric patients: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Readmission rate is considered an indicator of the mental health care quality. Previous studies have examined a number of factors that are likely to influence readmission. The main objective of this systematic review is to identify the studied pre-discharge variables and describe their relevance to readmission among psychiatric patients. METHODS: Studies on the association between pre-discharge variables and readmission after discharge with a main psychiatric diagnosis were searched in the bibliographic databases Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, ProQuest Health Management and OpenGrey. Relevant publications published between January 1990 and June 2014 were included. For each variable, the number of papers that considered it as a predictor of readmission and that found a significant association was recorded, together with the association direction and whether it was found respectively in bivariate and in multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of the 734 articles identified in the search, 58 papers were included in this review, mainly from the USA and concerning patients with severe mental disorders. Analysed variables were classified according to the following categories: patients' demographic, social and economic characteristics; patients' clinical characteristics; patients' clinical history; patients' attitude and perception; environmental, social and hospital characteristics; and admission and discharge characteristics. The most consistently significant predictor of readmission was previous hospitalisations. Many socio-demographic variables resulted as influencing readmission, but the results were not always homogeneous. Among other patients' clinical characteristics, diagnosis and measures of functional status were the most often used variables. Among admission characteristics, length of stay was the main factor studied; however, the results were not very consistent. Other relevant aspects resulted associated with readmission, including the presence of social support, but they have been considered only in few papers. Results of quality assessment are also reported in the review. The majority of papers were not representative of the general psychiatric population discharged from an inpatient service. Almost all studies used multivariate analytical methods, i.e., confounders were controlled for, but only around 60% adjusted for previous hospitalisation, the variable most consistently considered associated to readmission in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The results contribute to increase knowledge on pre-discharge factors that could be considered by researchers as well as by clinicians to predict and prevent readmissions of psychiatric patients. Associations are not always straightforward and interactions between factors have to be considered.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy compared with cognitive-behavioural therapy and combination therapy for the treatment of moderate to severe depression in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales recommends the combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for the treatment of moderate to severe depression. However, the cost-effectiveness analysis on which these recommendations are based has not included psychotherapy as monotherapy as a potential option. For this reason, we aimed to update, augment and refine the existing economic evaluation. METHOD: We constructed a decision analytic model with a 27-month time horizon. We compared pharmacotherapy with cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and combination treatment for moderate to severe depression in secondary care from a healthcare service perspective. We reviewed the literature to identify relevant evidence and, where possible, synthesized evidence from clinical trials in a meta-analysis to inform model parameters. RESULTS: The model suggested that CBT as monotherapy was most likely to be the most cost-effective treatment option above a threshold of £ 22,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). It dominated combination treatment and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £ 20,039 per QALY compared with pharmacotherapy. There was significant decision uncertainty in the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to previous NICE guidance, the results indicated that even for those patients for whom pharmacotherapy is acceptable, CBT as monotherapy may be a cost-effective treatment option. However, this conclusion was based on a limited evidence base, particularly for combination treatment. In addition, this evidence cannot easily be transferred to a primary care setting.

Discharge planning, self-management, and community support: Strategies to avoid psychiatric rehospitalisation from a service user perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric rehospitalisation is often seen as a negative outcome in terms of healthcare quality and cost, as well as potentially hindering the process of recovery. The purpose of our study was to explore psychiatric rehospitalisation from a service-user perspective, paying attention to how rehospitalisation can be avoided. METHOD: Eight focus groups, including a total of 55 mental health service users, were conducted in six European countries (Austria, Finland, Italy, Norway, Romania, and Slovenia). The results were analysed using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: All participants had been in touch with mental health services for at least one year, and had experienced more than one psychiatric hospitalisation. Participants emphasised the importance of discharge planning and psychoeducation both during and after the hospital stay, as well as the benefits of structured plans, coping strategies, self-monitoring techniques, and close contact with local community services.Social contacts and meaningful activities were also considered to be critical, as was support from peers and family members. CONCLUSION: Efforts to avoid psychiatric rehospitalisation should include actions that support a functional day-to-day life, improve coping strategies, and build on cross-sectoral collaboration. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The study emphasises the need for psychoeducational and psychosocial interventions, starting already during the inpatient stay.

Differences in the use of involuntary admission across the Veneto Region: which role for individual and contextual variables?

AIMS: The first aim of this study is to compare involuntary admissions across the Veneto Region in Italy. The second aim is to explore the relation between mental health services provision, characteristics of population, individual factors and involuntary admissions. METHODS: For 21 Mental Health Departments (MHDs) in the Veneto Region (Italy), the average population prevalence rate of involuntary admissions between 2000 and 2007 and the percentage of involuntary admissions were calculated. Chi-square tests for equality of proportions were used to test hypotheses. Variables at the individual, contextual and organisational levels were used in multiple regressions, with the involuntary admission data as dependent variables. RESULTS: The average prevalence rate of involuntary commitment was 12.75 ranging from 1.96 to 27.59 across MHDs . About 75% of the involuntary admissions referred to psychotic patients, and almost half of patients were aged 25-44. Significant differences among MHDs emerged; higher percentages of involuntary admissions were generally found in densely populated areas. Higher ageing indices and rates of social workers were found as predictors of the prevalence rate. In the multilevel regression, being males and psychotic significantly increased involuntary admissions, while the percentage of singles in population decreased it. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to define the specific contribution of each factor predicting the use of involuntary admission, even within areas under the same legislation. It shows how the inclusion of both individual and contextual factors may lead to better predictions and provides precious data for the services improvement.

The difficult task of predicting the costs of community-based mental health care. A comprehensive case register study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have attempted to forecast the costs of mental health care, using clinical and individual variables; the inclusion of ecological measures could improve the knowledge of predictors of psychiatric service utilisation and costs to support clinical and strategic decision-making. METHODS: Using a Psychiatric Case Register (PCR), all patients with an ICD-10 psychiatric diagnosis, who had at least one contact with community-based psychiatric services in the Verona Health District, Northern Italy, were included in the study (N = 4558). For each patient, one year's total cost of care was calculated by merging service contact data with unit cost estimates and clinical and socio-demographic variables were collected. A socio-economic status (SES) index was developed, as a proxy of deprivation, using census data. Multilevel multiple regression models, considering socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of patients as well as socioeconomic local characteristics, were estimated to predict costs. RESULTS: The mean annual cost for all patients was 2,606.11 Euros; patients with an ongoing episode of care and with psychosis presented higher mean costs. Previous psychiatric history represented the most significant predictor of cost (36.99% R2 increase) and diagnosis was also a significant predictor but explained only 4.96% of cost variance. Psychiatric costs were uniform throughout the Verona Health District and SES characteristics alone contributed towards less than 1% of the cost variance. CONCLUSIONS: For all patients of community-based psychiatric services, a comprehensive model, including both patients' individual characteristics and socioeconomic local status, was able to predict 43% of variance in costs of care.