The effect of psychiatric decision unit services on inpatient admissions and mental health presentations in emergency departments: an interrupted time series analysis from two cities and one rural area in England.

AIMS: High-quality evidence is lacking for the impact on healthcare utilisation of short-stay alternatives to psychiatric inpatient services for people experiencing acute and/or complex mental health crises (known in England as psychiatric decision units [PDUs]). We assessed the extent to which changes in psychiatric hospital and emergency department (ED) activity were explained by implementation of PDUs in England using a quasi-experimental approach. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis of weekly aggregated data pre- and post-PDU implementation in one rural and two urban sites using segmented regression, adjusting for temporal and seasonal trends. Primary outcomes were changes in the number of voluntary inpatient admissions to (acute) adult psychiatric wards and number of ED adult mental health-related attendances in the 24 months post-PDU implementation compared to that in the 24 months pre-PDU implementation. RESULTS: The two PDUs (one urban and one rural) with longer (average) stays and high staff-to-patient ratios observed post-PDU decreases in the pattern of weekly voluntary psychiatric admissions relative to pre-PDU trend (Rural: -0.45%/week, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.78%, -0.12%; Urban: -0.49%/week, 95% CI = -0.73%, -0.25%); PDU implementation in each was associated with an estimated 35-38% reduction in total voluntary admissions in the post-PDU period. The (urban) PDU with the highest throughput, lowest staff-to-patient ratio and shortest average stay observed a 20% (-20.4%, CI = -29.7%, -10.0%) level reduction in mental health-related ED attendances post-PDU, although there was little impact on long-term trend. Pooled analyses across sites indicated a significant reduction in the number of voluntary admissions following PDU implementation (-16.6%, 95% CI = -23.9%, -8.5%) but no significant (long-term) trend change (-0.20%/week, 95% CI = -0.74%, 0.34%) and no short- (-2.8%, 95% CI = -19.3%, 17.0%) or long-term (0.08%/week, 95% CI = -0.13, 0.28%) effects on mental health-related ED attendances. Findings were largely unchanged in secondary (ITS) analyses that considered the introduction of other service initiatives in the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of PDUs was associated with an immediate reduction of voluntary psychiatric inpatient admissions. The extent to which PDUs change long-term trends of voluntary psychiatric admissions or impact on psychiatric presentations at ED may be linked to their configuration. PDUs with a large capacity, short length of stay and low staff-to-patient ratio can positively impact ED mental health presentations, while PDUs with longer length of stay and higher staff-to-patient ratios have potential to reduce voluntary psychiatric admissions over an extended period. Taken as a whole, our analyses suggest that when establishing a PDU, consideration of the primary crisis-care need that underlies the creation of the unit is key.

What is the impact of psychiatric decision units on mental health crisis care pathways? Protocol for an interrupted time series analysis with a synthetic control study.

BACKGROUND: The UK mental health system is stretched to breaking point. Individuals presenting with mental health problems wait longer at the ED than those presenting with physical concerns and finding a bed when needed is difficult - 91% of psychiatric wards are operating at above the recommended occupancy rate. To address the pressure, a new type of facility - psychiatric decision units (also known as mental health decision units) - have been introduced in some areas. These are short-stay facilities, available upon referral, targeted to help individuals who may be able to avoid an inpatient admission or lengthy ED visit. To advance knowledge about the effectiveness of this service for this purpose, we will examine the effect of the service on the mental health crisis care pathway over a 4-year time period; the 2 years proceeding and following the introduction of the service. We use aggregate service level data of key indicators of the performance of this pathway. METHODS: Data from four mental health Trusts in England will be analysed using an interrupted time series (ITS) design with the primary outcomes of the rate of (i) ED psychiatric presentations and (ii) voluntary admissions to mental health wards. This will be supplemented with a synthetic control study with the same primary outcomes, in which a comparable control group is generated for each outcome using a donor pool of suitable National Health Service Trusts in England. The methods are well suited to an evaluation of an intervention at a service delivery level targeting population-level health outcome and the randomisation or 'trialability' of the intervention is limited. The synthetic control study controls for national trends over time, increasing our confidence in the results. The study has been designed and will be carried out with the involvement of service users and carers. DISCUSSION: This will be the first formal evaluation of psychiatric decision units in England. The analysis will provide estimates of the effect of the decision units on a number of important service use indicators, providing much-needed information for those designing service pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: primary registry: isrctn.com Identifying number: ISRCTN77588384 Link: Date of registration in primary registry: 27/02/2020. PRIMARY SPONSOR: St George's, University of London, Cramner Road, Tooting, SW17 ORE. Primary contact: Joe Montebello.