Shortening hospital stay for psychiatric care: effect on patients and their families. Description and evaluation of a short-stay admission ward. Psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, emergency room visits, and homelessness of clients with serious and persistent mental illness: findings from a randomized trial of two ACT programs vs. usual care. The effect on hospital admissions of psychiatric case management involving general practitioners: preliminary results. Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsory treatment in psychiatry: single blind randomised controlled trial. Effects of a multidisciplinary, post-discharge continuance of care intervention on quality of life, discharge satisfaction, and hospital length of stay: a randomized controlled trial. Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental illness: the effect on hospital use and costs. Patient-held shared care records for individuals with mental illness. Randomised controlled evaluation. A cluster-randomised trial evaluating an intervention for patients with stress-related mental disorders and sick leave in primary care.
A one-year cohort of patients from a defined catchment area with acute functional disorders were allocated at random to brief care (experimental group) or standard care (control group) in hospital to examine the effect of shortening hospital stay on the clinical and social functioning of patients and the distress abnormal functioning caused to others. A total of 127 patients were interviewed on entry to the study, and 106 were followed up. The brief care group had significantly shorter mean and median lengths of stay than the control group, but there was no difference between the groups in the number of days spent in hospital during subsequent admissions. The groups were well matched for clinical and social variables. Rates of improvement over 13 weeks were essentially the same by all measures of outcome, including the Present State Examination and Patient's Behaviour Assessment Scale, which was developed for the study to measure deterioration in behaviour and social functioning and adverse effects and distress on others. There was no difference between the two groups in burden to the community supporting services, social security requirements, or GP attendances. Improvement rates were nearly identical on all measures within and across diagnostic subgroups. Brief care resulted in a 33% reduction in average length of stay compared with the year before but was associated with a corresponding increase in day hospital use. The short-stay policy continued the year after the study finished.The findings confirm the value of shortening hospital stay and improving day care facilities for most localities. Duration of stay for unselected admissions to an acute psychiatric ward was reduced to an average of 11 days. The clinical methods by which this was achieved are described. Comparing patients randomly allocated to this experimental ward and other admission wards: (i) the readmission rate to the experimental ward was higher but readmissions were briefer so that total in-patient experience per patient over the course of one year remained substantially lower; (ii) symptom levels and burden on the family had improved equally at three weeks and at four months after discharge; (iii) experimental ward patients made fewer demands on their general practitioners and reported fewer parasuicides. Beds can be released for other purposes in this way. This investigation examined several adverse outcomes in clients with serious mental illness in a randomized trial of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) versus usual care.
                163 subjects were randomized to one of two ACT experimental conditions (staffed by consumers or non-consumers) or usual community care. Conditions were compared on psychiatric hospitalization, emergency room visit, arrest, and homelessness, within the two-year study period. Demographic, program, and client variables were examined for significant associations with outcomes.
                Significant differences were found between ACT and usual care in time to first arrest, but not hospitalization, homelessness or ER visits. Shorter time to first hospitalization was associated with male gender, diagnoses other than schizophrenia, high psychiatric symptomatology and lower provider case load. ER visits were associated with increased client symptomatology. Shorter times to homelessness were predicted by poorer therapeutic alliance between case manager and clients. Shorter time to first arrest was predicted by client minority status and enrollment in usual care.
                The paucity of significant main effects may have been due to a prolonged "start-up" phase of the ACT programs, poor ACT implementation, restricted availability of psychiatric hospital beds, or changes in usual care services delivered over the study period. A two year follow-up of two matched groups of subjects with chronic severe mental illness was performed in order to evaluate a new psychiatric case management system. One group (n = 59) received care through psychiatric case management, using an assertive community treatment model that directly involved general practitioners. The other group, matched for age, sex, diagnostic group and number of hospital admissions, received standard outpatient care. Comparing the two years before and after case management, the experimental group showed a dramatic fall in inpatient admission days while the control group admission days remained the same (median difference in admission days across matched subject pairs = 64.5, 95% C.I. from 134.5 to 16). The experimental group remained out of hospital longer before first readmission (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, P = 0.002). This type of case management programme can shorten or prevent admissions to psychiatric hospitals of patients with chronic mental illness, and increase their time before readmission. To investigate whether a form of advance agreement for people with severe mental illness can reduce the use of inpatient services and compulsory admission or treatment.
                Single blind randomised controlled trial, with randomisation of individual patients. The investigator was blind to allocation.
                Eight community mental health teams in southern England.
                160 people with an operational diagnosis of psychotic illness or non-psychotic bipolar disorder who had experienced a hospital admission within the previous two years.
                The joint crisis plan was formulated by the patient, care coordinator, psychiatrist, and project worker and contained contact information, details of mental and physical illnesses, treatments, indicators for relapse, and advance statements of preferences for care in the event of future relapse.
                Admission to hospital, bed days, and use of the Mental Health Act over 15 month follow up.
                Use of the Mental Health Act was significantly reduced for the intervention group, 13% (10/80) of whom experienced compulsory admission or treatment compared with 27% (21/80) of the control group (risk ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.95, P = 0.028). As a consequence, the mean number of days of detention (days spent as an inpatient while under a section of the Mental Health Act) for the whole intervention group was 14 compared with 31 for the control group (difference 16, 0 to 36, P = 0.04). For those admitted under a section of the Mental Health Act, the number of days of detention was similar in the two groups (means 114 and 117, difference 3, -61 to 67, P = 0.98). The intervention group had fewer admissions (risk ratio 0.69, 0.45 to 1.04, P = 0.07). There was no evidence for differences in bed days (total number of days spent as an inpatient) (means 32 and 36, difference 4, -18 to 26, P = 0.15 for the whole sample; means 107 and 83, difference -24, -72 to 24, P = 0.39 for those admitted).
                Use of joint crisis plans reduced compulsory admissions and treatment in patients with severe mental illness. The reduction in overall admission was less. This is the first structured clinical intervention that seems to reduce compulsory admission and treatment in mental health services. To determine the impact of a hospital-coordinated discharge care plan, involving a multidisciplinary team of primary health care providers, on hospital length of stay, quality of life, and both patient and general practitioner inclusion in, and satisfaction with, discharge procedures.
                This investigation comprised a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial.
                This multicentre and cross-jurisdictional study focused on areas of tertiary and primary health care as well as community allied health in Western Australia.
                Patients (n = 189) with chronic cardiorespiratory diagnoses were recruited from respiratory, cardiovascular, and general medical wards at two tertiary hospitals.
                Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Intervention group patients received a discharge care plan in accordance with that outlined in the Australian Enhanced Primary Care Package, completed before discharge and sent to the patient's general practitioner and other community service providers for review. Control patients were discharged under existing hospital processes. Outcome measures. Patients and general practitioners were surveyed pre-discharge and 7 days post-discharge for quality of life and opinion of discharge procedures. Hospital length of stay was also determined.
                Significant improvements in discharge planning involvement, health service access, confidence with discharge procedures, and opinion of discharge based on previous experience were seen for patients who received the discharge care plan. Further, improved perceptions of mental quality of life were observed within the first week post-discharge for intervention patients. Length of stay showed no difference between groups. Extent and speed of hospital-general practitioner communication were significantly improved via the intervention.
                Our results indicate that a multidisciplinary discharge care plan, initiated before separation, improves quality of life, involvement, and satisfaction with discharge care, and hospital-general practitioner integration. As such, it possesses benefits over current Western Australian hospital discharge procedures for the care of chronically ill populations. To determine the effect of the Program for Assertive Community Treatment (PACT) model on psychiatric inpatient service use in a population of non-emergency psychiatric patients with severe chronic mental illness, and to test for variations in this effect with program staffing levels and patient characteristics such as race and age.
                Data are taken from a randomized trial of PACT in Charleston, South Carolina for 144 patients recruited from August 1989 through July 1991.
                Subjects were randomly assigned either to one of two PACT programs or to usual care at a local mental health center. Effects on hospital use were measured over an 18-month follow-up period via multiple regression analysis.
                Data were obtained from Medicaid claims, chart reviews, subject, case manager, and family interviews; searches of the computerized patient and financial databases of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health and relevant hospitals; and searches of the hard copy and computerized financial databases of the two major local hospitals providing inpatient psychiatric care.
                PACT participants were about 40 percent less likely to be hospitalized during the follow-up period. The effect was stronger for older patients. Lower PACT client/staff ratios also reduced the risk of hospitalization. No evidence of differential race effects was found. Given some hospital use, PACT did not influence the number of days of use.
                Controlling for other covariates, PACT significantly reduces hospitalizations but the size of this effect varies with patient and program characteristics. This study shows that previous results on PACT can be applied to non-emergency patients even when the control condition is an up-to-date CMHC office-based case management program. Few formalized shared care schemes exist within psychiatry and the evidence base for sharing psychiatric care is weak.
                To evaluate the utility of patient-held shared care records for individuals with long-term mental illness.
                Cluster-randomised controlled parallel-group 12-month trial involving 90 patients with long-term mental illness drawn from 28 general practices.
                Carrying a shared care record had no significant effect on mental state or satisfaction with psychiatric services. Compared with controls, patients in the shared care group were no more likely to be admitted (relative risk 1.2, 95% CI 0.86-1.67) and attend clinic (relative risk 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.36) over the study period. Uptake of the shared care scheme was low by patients and professionals alike. Subjects with psychotic illness were significantly less likely to use their records (relative risk 0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.99).
                Patient-held records may not be helpful for patients with long-term mental illness. Mental health problems often affect functioning to such an extent that they result in sick leave. The worldwide reported prevalence of mental health problems in the working population is 10%-18%. In developed countries, mental health problems are one of the main grounds for receiving disability benefits. In up to 90% of cases the cause is stress-related, and health-care utilisation is mainly restricted to primary care. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of our Minimal Intervention for Stress-related mental disorders with Sick leave (MISS) in primary care, which is intended to reduce sick leave and prevent chronicity of symptoms.
                Cluster-randomised controlled educational trial.
                Primary health-care practices in the Amsterdam area, The Netherlands.
                A total of 433 patients (MISS n = 227, usual care [UC] n = 206) with sick leave and self-reported elevated level of distress.
                Forty-six primary care physicians were randomised to either receive training in the MISS or to provide UC. Eligible patients were screened by mail.
                The primary outcome measure was duration of sick leave until lasting full return to work. The secondary outcomes were levels of self-reported distress, depression, anxiety, and somatisation.
                No superior effect of the MISS was found on duration of sick leave (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.87-1.29) nor on severity of self-reported symptoms.
                We found no evidence that the MISS is more effective than UC in our study sample of distressed patients. Continuing research should focus on the potential beneficial effects of the MISS; we need to investigate which elements of the intervention might be useful and which elements should be adjusted to make the MISS effective.
The effects of hospital care and the length of stay is important for mental health policy. We found limited data, although outcomes do suggest that a planned short stay policy does not encourage a 'revolving door' pattern of admission and disjointed care for people with serious mental illness. More large, well-designed and reported trials are justified.