Impact of secondary care financial incentives on the quality of physical healthcare for people with psychosis: a longitudinal controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have repeatedly been expressed about the quality of physical healthcare that people with psychosis receive. AIMS: To examine whether the introduction of a financial incentive for secondary care services led to improvements in the quality of physical healthcare for people with psychosis. METHOD: Longitudinal data were collected over an 8-year period on the quality of physical healthcare that people with psychosis received from 56 trusts in England before and after the introduction of the financial incentive. Control data were also collected from six health boards in Wales where a financial incentive was not introduced. We calculated the proportion of patients whose clinical records indicated that they had been screened for seven key aspects of physical health and whether they were offered interventions for problems identified during screening. RESULTS: Data from 17 947 people collected prior to (2011 and 2013) and following (2017) the introduction of the financial incentive in 2014 showed that the proportion of patients who received high-quality physical healthcare in England rose from 12.85% to 31.65% (difference 18.80, 95% CI 17.37-20.21). The proportion of patients who received high-quality physical healthcare in Wales during this period rose from 8.40% to 13.96% (difference 5.56, 95% CI 1.33-10.10). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that financial incentives for secondary care mental health services are associated with marked improvements in the quality of care that patients receive. Further research is needed to examine their impact on aspects of care that are not incentivised.

A programme theory for liaison mental health services in England.

BACKGROUND: Mechanisms by which liaison mental health services (LMHS) may bring about improved patient and organisational outcomes are poorly understood. A small number of logic models have been developed, but they fail to capture the complexity of clinical practice. METHOD: We synthesised data from a variety of sources including a large national survey, 73 in-depth interviews with acute and liaison staff working in hospitals with different types of liaison mental health services, and relevant local, national and international literature. We generated logic models for two common performance indicators used to assess organisational outcomes for LMHS: response times in the emergency department and hospital length of stay for people with mental health problems. RESULTS: We identified 8 areas of complexity that influence performance, and 6 trade-offs which drove the models in different directions depending upon the balance of the trade-off. The logic models we developed could only be captured by consideration of more than one pass through the system, the complexity in which they operated, and the trade-offs that occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are important for commissioners of liaison services. Reliance on simple target setting may result in services that are unbalanced and not patient-centred. Targets need to be reviewed on a regular basis, together with other data that reflect the wider impact of the service, and any external changes in the system that affect the performance of LMHS, which are beyond their control.

Acceptability and use of coercive methods across differing service configurations with and without seclusion and/or psychiatric intensive care units.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare across different service configurations the acceptability of containment methods to acute ward staff and the speed of initiation of manual restraint. BACKGROUND: One of the primary remits of acute inpatient psychiatric care is the reduction in risks. Where risks are higher than normal, patients can be transferred to a psychiatric intensive care unit or placed in seclusion. The abolition or reduction in these two containment methods in some hospitals may trigger compensatory increases in other forms of containment which have potential risks. How staff members manage risk without access to these facilities has not been systematically studied. DESIGN: The study applied a cross-sectional design. METHODS: Data were collected from 207 staff at eight hospital sites in England between 2013 - 2014. Participants completed two measures; the first assessing the acceptability of different forms of containment for disturbed behaviour and the second assessing decision-making in relation to the need for manual restraint of an aggressive patient. RESULTS: In service configurations with access to seclusion, staff rated seclusion as more acceptable and reported greater use of it. Psychiatric intensive care unit acceptability and use were not associated with its provision. Where there was no access to seclusion, staff were slower to initiate restraint. There was no relationship between acceptability of manual restraint and its initiation. CONCLUSION: Tolerance of higher risk before initiating restraint was evident in wards without seclusion units. Ease of access to psychiatric intensive care units makes little difference to restraint thresholds or judgements of containment acceptability.

Identification of the "minimal triangle" and other common event-to-event transitions in conflict and containment incidents.

Although individual conflict and containment events among acute psychiatric inpatients have been studied in some detail, the relationship of these events to each other has not. In particular, little is known about the temporal order of events for individual patients. This study aimed to identify the most common pathways from event to event. A sample of 522 patients was recruited from 84 acute psychiatric wards in 31 hospital locations in London and the surrounding areas during 2009-2010. Data on the order of conflict and containment events were collected for the first two weeks of admission from patients' case notes. Event-to-event transitions were tabulated and depicted diagrammatically. Event types were tested for their most common temporal placing in sequences of events. Most conflict and containment occurs within and between events of the minimal triangle (verbal aggression, de-escalation, and PRN medication), and the majority of these event sequences conclude in no further events; a minority transition to other, more severe, events. Verbal abuse and medication refusal were more likely to start sequences of disturbed behaviour. Training in the prevention and management of violence needs to acknowledge that a gradual escalation of patient behaviour does not always occur. Verbal aggression is a critical initiator of conflict events, and requires more detailed and sustained research on optimal management and prevention strategies. Similar research is required into medication refusal by inpatients.

The permeable institution: an ethnographic study of three acute psychiatric wards in London.

In Asylums, Goffman [1961. Asylums. London: Penguin] identified some permeable features of the old mental hospitals but presented them as exceptions to the rule and focused on their impermeable aspects. We argue that this emphasis is no longer valid and offer an alternative ideal type that better represents the reality of everyday life in contemporary 'bricks and mortar' psychiatric institutions. We call this the "permeable institution". The research involved participant observation of between 3 and 4 months and interviews with patients, patient advocates and staff on 3 psychiatric wards. Evidence for permeability includes that ward membership is temporary and changes rapidly (patients tend to have very short stays and staff turnover is high); patients maintain contact with the outside world during their stay; and institutional identities are blurred to the point where visitors or new patients can easily mistake staff and patients for one another. Permeability has both positive consequences (e.g., reduced risk of institutionalism), and negative consequences (e.g., unwanted people coming into hospital to cause trouble, and illicit drug use among patients). Staff employ various methods to regulate their ward's permeability, within certain parameters. The metaphor of the total/closed institution remains valuable, but it fails to capture the highly permeable nature of the psychiatric institutions we studied. Analysts may therefore find the permeable institution a more helpful reference point or ideal type against which to examine and compare empirical cases. Perhaps most helpful is to conceptualise a continuum of institutional permeability with total and permeable institutions at each extreme.

Service users' strategies for managing risk in the volatile environment of an acute psychiatric ward.

Previous research shows that too often acute psychiatric inpatient care is neither safe nor therapeutic for patients. Earlier studies focused on promoting safety through good ward design, staff being able to anticipate and prevent violence, and use of medication. The current evidence base overwhelmingly reflects a staff perspective on risk management, and there is little evidence on how service users cope in this environment or about the strategies they employ to manage the risks they face or pose to others. This paper presents findings on this from two studies: (a) ethnographic research on three UK acute psychiatric wards, undertaken between 2000 and 2002, and (b) a content analysis of qualitative data from a 1999/2000 survey of psychiatric wards in England. Findings show that while some users perceive their ward to be comparatively safe--given the crisis they were in before being admitted--it is nonetheless a volatile environment in which risks are concentrated. Many risks, such as physical assault, are attributable to other patients. However, they are better understood as an outcome of the interplay between a range of interactional and contextual factors: for example, low staffing levels/minimal or poor surveillance may increase the risk of assault. Users were found to employ 10 strategies to manage risk on the ward, including actively avoiding risky situations/individuals, seeking staff protection, and getting discharged. Integral to these strategies are the risk assessments that patients make of one another. These findings shed light on how people cope while living in one of the most anxiety-inducing institutions of a 'risk management society'. Service users routinely take an active role in making a safe environment for themselves, in part because they cannot rely on staff to do this for them. Future clinical practice guidelines should consider how to harness what users are already doing to manage risk.