Search

Background: Intensive forms of outreach mental health care (IOC) such as crisis resolution or home treatment teams are increasingly implemented as alternatives to inpatient admission, providing recovery-oriented treatment at home at comparable costs and outcomes. However, one issue with IOC is the lack of continuity regarding staff members who provide home visits, complicating relationship building and meaningful therapeutic exchange. The aim of this study is to validate existing primarily qualitative findings using performance data and to explore a possible correlation between the number of staff involved within IOC treatment and the service users' length of stay (LOS). Methods: Routine data from an IOC team in a catchment area in Eastern Germany were analyzed. Basic parameters of service delivery were calculated and an indepth descriptive analysis regarding staff continuity was performed. Further, an exploratory single case analysis was conducted, presenting the exact sequence of all treatment contacts for one case with low and one with high staff continuity. Results: We analyzed 10.598 face-to-face treatment contacts based on 178 IOC users. The mean LOS was 30.99days. About 75% of all home visits were conducted by two or more staff members simultaneously. Service users saw an average of 10.24 different staff per treatment episode. On 11% of the care days, only unknown staff, and on 34% of the care days at least one unknown staff member conducted the home visit. 83% of the contacts were performed by the same three staff members and 51% were made by one and the same staff member. A significant positive correlation (p = 0.0007) was found between the number of different practitioners seen by a service user in the first seven days of care and the LOS. Conclusion: Our results suggest that a high number of different staff in the early period of IOC episodes correlates with an extended LOS. Future research must clarify the exact mechanisms of this correlation. Furthermore, it should be investigated how the multiple professions within IOC teams influence the LOS and the quality of treatment and what quality indicators may be suitable to ensure treatment processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Internationally, intensive psychiatric home treatment has been increasingly implemented as a community-based alternative to inpatient admission. Since 2018, the so-called Inpatient Equivalent Home Treatment (IEHT; German: "Stationsäquivalente Behandlung", short: "StäB") has been introduced as a particularly intensive form of home treatment that provides at least one daily treatment contact in the service users' (SU) home environment. Prior research shows that this can be challenging in rural catchment areas. Our paper investigates to which extent the location of the SU home location within the catchment area as well as the distance between the home and the clinic influence the utilisation of inpatient treatment compared to IEHT. Method: Routine data of one psychiatric hospital in the federal state of Brandenburg in Germany were analysed for the observational period 07/2018–06/2021. Two comparison groups were formed: SU receiving inpatient treatment and SU receiving IEHT. The SU places of residence were respectively anonymised and converted into geo-coordinates. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to visualise the places of residence, and car travel distances as well as travel times to the clinic were determined. Spatial analyses were performed to show the differences between comparison groups. In a more in-depth analysis, the proximity of SU residences to each other was examined as an indicator of possible clustering. Results: During the observational period, the location of 687 inpatient and 140 IEHT unique SU were mapped using the GIS. SU receiving treatment resided predominantly within the catchment area, and this proportion was slightly higher for SU receiving IEHT than for those treated in inpatient setting (95.3% vs. 84.7%). In the catchment area, the geographical distribution of SU place of residence was similar in the two groups. There was a general higher service provision in the more densely populated communities close to Berlin. SU with residence in peripheral communities were mainly treated within the inpatient setting. The mean travel times and distances to the place of residence only differed minimally between the two groups of SU (p < 0.05). The places of residence of SU treated with IEHT were located in greater proximity to each other than those of SU treated in inpatient setting (p >; 0.1). Conclusion: In especially peripheral parts of the examined catchment area, it may be more difficult to have access to IEHT rather than to inpatient services. The results raise questions regarding health equity and the planning of health care services and have important implications for the further development of intensive home treatment. Telehealth interventions such as blended-care approaches and an increase of flexibility in treatment intensity, e.g. eliminating the daily visit requirement, could ease the implementation of intensive home treatment especially in rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the last decades, many high-income countries have successfully implemented assertive outreach mental health services for acute care. Despite evidence that these services entail several benefits for service users, Germany has lagged behind and has been slow in implementing outreach services. In 2018, a new law enabled national mental health care providers to implement team-based crisis intervention services on a regular basis, allowing for different forms of Inpatient Equivalent Home Treatment (IEHT). IEHT is similar to the internationally known Home Treatment or Crisis Resolution Teams. It provides acute psychiatric treatment at the user's home, similar to inpatient hospital treatment in terms of content, flexibility, and complexity. Methods/design: The presented naturalistic, quasi-experimental cohort study will evaluate IEHT in ten hospitals running IEHT services in different German regions. Within a multi-method research approach, it will evaluate stakeholders' experiences of care, service use, efficacy, costs, treatment processes and implementation processes of IEHT from different perspectives. Quantitative surveys will be used to recruit 360 service users. Subsequently, 180 service users receiving IEHT will be compared with 180 matched statistical 'twins' receiving standard inpatient treatment. Assessments will take place at baseline as well as after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the hospital re-admission rate within 12 months. Secondary outcomes include the combined readmission rate, total number of inpatient hospital days, treatment discontinuation rate, quality of life, psycho-social functioning, job integration, recovery, satisfaction with care, shared decision-making, and treatment costs. Additionally, the study will assess the burden of care and satisfaction with care among relatives or informal caregivers. A collaborative research team made up of researchers with and without lived experience of mental distress will conduct qualitative investigations with service users, caregivers and IEHT staff teams to explore critical ingredients and interactions between implementation processes, treatment processes, and outcomes from a stakeholder perspective. Discussion: By integrating outcome, process and implementation research as well as different stakeholder perspectives and experiences in one study, this trial captures the various facets of IEHT as a special form of home treatment. Therefore, it allows for an adequate, comprehensive evaluation on different levels of this complex intervention. Trial registration: Trial registrations: 1) German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS000224769. Registered December 3rd 2020, https://www.drks.de/drks%5fweb/setLocale%5fEN.do; 2) ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT0474550. Registered February 9th 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]