Evaluating mental health decision units in acute care pathways (DECISION): a quasi-experimental, qualitative and health economic evaluation.

Background: People experiencing mental health crises in the community often present to emergency departments and are admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Because of the demands on emergency department and inpatient care, psychiatric decision units have emerged to provide a more suitable environment for assessment and signposting to appropriate care. Objectives: The study aimed to ascertain the structure and activities of psychiatric decision units in England and to provide an evidence base for their effectiveness, costs and benefits, and optimal configuration. Design: This was a mixed-methods study comprising survey, systematic review, interrupted time series, synthetic control study, cohort study, qualitative interview study and health economic evaluation, using a critical interpretive synthesis approach. Setting: The study took place in four mental health National Health Service trusts with psychiatric decision units, and six acute hospital National Health Service trusts where emergency departments referred to psychiatric decision units in each mental health trust. Participants: Participants in the cohort study (n = 2110) were first-time referrals to psychiatric decision units for two 5-month periods from 1 October 2018 and 1 October 2019, respectively. Participants in the qualitative study were first-time referrals to psychiatric decision units recruited within 1 month of discharge (n = 39), members of psychiatric decision unit clinical teams (n = 15) and clinicians referring to psychiatric decision units (n = 19). Outcomes: Primary mental health outcome in the interrupted time series and cohort study was informal psychiatric hospital admission, and in the synthetic control any psychiatric hospital admission; primary emergency department outcome in the interrupted time series and synthetic control was mental health attendance at emergency department. Data for the interrupted time series and cohort study were extracted from electronic patient record in mental health and acute trusts; data for the synthetic control study were obtained through NHS Digital from Hospital Episode Statistics admitted patient care for psychiatric admissions and Hospital Episode Statistics Accident and Emergency for emergency department attendances. The health economic evaluation used data from all studies. Relevant databases were searched for controlled or comparison group studies of hospital-based mental health assessments permitting overnight stays of a maximum of 1 week that measured adult acute psychiatric admissions and/or mental health presentations at emergency department. Selection, data extraction and quality rating of studies were double assessed. Narrative synthesis of included studies was undertaken and meta-analyses were performed where sufficient studies reported outcomes. Results: Psychiatric decision units have the potential to reduce informal psychiatric admissions, mental health presentations and wait times at emergency department. Cost savings are largely marginal and do not offset the cost of units. First-time referrals to psychiatric decision units use more inpatient and community care and less emergency department-based liaison psychiatry in the months following the first visit. Psychiatric decision units work best when configured to reduce either informal psychiatric admissions (longer length of stay, higher staff-to-patient ratio, use of psychosocial interventions), resulting in improved quality of crisis care or demand on the emergency department (higher capacity, shorter length of stay). To function well, psychiatric decision units should be integrated into the crisis care pathway alongside a range of community-based support. Limitations: The availability and quality of data imposed limitations on the reliability of some analyses. Future work: Psychiatric decision units should not be commissioned with an expectation of short-term financial return on investment but, if appropriately configured, they can provide better quality of care for people in crisis who would not benefit from acute admission or reduce pressure on emergency department. Study registration: The systematic review was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews as CRD42019151043. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/49/70) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People who experience mental health crises often go to a hospital emergency department and can be admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Emergency departments and psychiatric wards are not always the best environments for supporting people in a crisis. Emergency departments are overcrowded and waits can be very long; psychiatric wards are also very busy. Psychiatric decision units have been introduced to reduce pressure and improve experiences of crisis care. Psychiatric decision units are short-stay hospital-based units where people can be assessed and signposted to the most appropriate care. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of psychiatric decision units on emergency department visits, psychiatric admissions and the cost of mental health care, and to consider the best way for psychiatric decision units to be structured. We looked at research on similar units internationally and identified all psychiatric decision units in England. We evaluated the impact of psychiatric decision units four mental health NHS trusts on emergency department visits and psychiatric admissions by examining electronic patient records in the 2 years before and after units opened, and by comparing records in areas with and without psychiatric decision units using data from NHS Digital. We compared mental health services used by people in the 9 months before and after their first psychiatric decision unit stay. We interviewed people about their experiences of the psychiatric decision unit and crisis care. We also interviewed staff working on and referring people to psychiatric decision units. There were some reductions in psychiatric admissions, emergency department visits and wait times following opening of psychiatric decision units. The resulting cost savings were small and did not outweigh the costs of running psychiatric decision units. People mostly found units safe, calming and supportive, except where they were discharged too quickly. Psychiatric decision units worked best to reduce psychiatric admissions and improve quality of crisis care where stays were longer and staffing levels higher. Psychiatric decision units had more impact on emergency departments where they were larger and stays were shorter.

Service use preceding and following first referral for psychiatric emergency care at a short-stay crisis unit: A cohort study across three cities and one rural area in England.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, hospital-based short-stay crisis units have been introduced to provide a safe space for stabilisation and further assessment for those in psychiatric crisis. The units typically aim to reduce inpatient admissions and psychiatric presentations to emergency departments. AIMS: To assess changes to service use following a service user's first visit to a unit, characterise the population accessing these units and examine equality of access to the units. METHODS: A prospective cohort study design (ISCTRN registered; 53431343) compared service use for the 9 months preceding and following a first visit to a short-stay crisis unit at three cities and one rural area in England. Included individuals first visited a unit in the 6 months between 01/September/2020 and 28/February/2021. RESULTS: The prospective cohort included 1189 individuals aged 36 years on average, significantly younger (by 5-13 years) than the population of local service users (<.001). Seventy percent were White British and most were without a psychiatric diagnosis (55%-82% across sites). The emergency department provided the largest single source of referrals to the unit (42%), followed by the Crisis and Home Treatment Team (20%). The use of most mental health services, including all types of admission and community mental health services was increased post discharge. Social-distancing measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic were in place for slightly over 50% of the follow-up period. Comparison to a pre-COVID cohort of 934 individuals suggested that the pandemic had no effect on the majority of service use variables. CONCLUSIONS: Short-stay crisis units are typically accessed by a young population, including those who previously were unknown to mental health services, who proceed to access a broader range of mental health services following discharge.

Short-stay crisis units for mental health patients on crisis care pathways: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, an increasing proportion of emergency department visits are mental health related. Concurrently, psychiatric wards are often occupied above capacity. Healthcare providers have introduced short-stay, hospital-based crisis units offering a therapeutic space for stabilisation, assessment and appropriate referral. Research lags behind roll-out, and a review of the evidence is urgently needed to inform policy and further introduction of similar units. AIMS: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of short-stay, hospital-based mental health crisis units. METHOD: We searched EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to March 2021. All designs incorporating a control or comparison group were eligible for inclusion, and all effect estimates with a comparison group were extracted and combined meta-analytically where appropriate. We assessed study risk of bias with Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions and Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials. RESULTS: Data from twelve studies across six countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, The Netherlands, UK and USA) and 67 505 participants were included. Data indicated that units delivered benefits on many outcomes. Units could reduce psychiatric holds (42% after intervention compared with 49.8% before intervention; difference = 7.8%; P < 0.0001) and increase out-patient follow-up care (χ2 = 37.42, d.f. = 1; P < 0.001). Meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in length of emergency department stay (by 164.24 min; 95% CI -261.24 to -67.23 min; P < 0.001) and number of in-patient admissions (odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.43-0.68; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Short-stay mental health crisis units are effective for reducing emergency department wait times and in-patient admissions. Further research should investigate the impact of units on patient experience, and clinical and social outcomes.

The psychiatric decision unit as an emerging model in mental health crisis care: a national survey in England.

Psychiatric decision units have been developed in many countries internationally to address the pressure on inpatient services and dissatisfactory, long waits people in mental health crisis can experience in emergency departments. Research into these units lags behind their development, as they are implemented by healthcare providers to address these problems. This is the first-ever national survey to identify their prevalence, structure, activities, and contextual setting within health services, in order to provide a robust basis for future research. The response rate was high (94%), and six PDUs in England were identified. The results indicated that PDUs open 24/7, accept only voluntary patients, provide recliner chairs for sleeping rather than beds, and limit stays to 12-72 hours. PDUs are predominantly staffed by senior, qualified mental health nurses and healthcare assistants, with psychiatry input. Staff:patient ratios are high (1:2.1 during the day shift). Differences in PDU structure and activities (including referral pathway, length of stay, and staff:patient ratios) were identified, suggesting the optimal configuration for PDUs has not yet been established. Further research into the efficacy of this innovation is needed; PDUs potentially have a role in an integrated crisis care pathway which provides a variety of care options to service users.