Search

Background: Weaknesses in the provision of mental health crisis support are evident and improvements that include voluntary sector provision are promoted. There is a lack of evidence regarding the contribution of the voluntary sector and how this might be used to the best effect in mental health crisis care., Aim: To investigate the contribution of voluntary sector organisations to mental health crisis care in England., Design: Multimethod sequential design with a comparative case study., Setting: England, with four case studies in North England, East England, the Midlands and London., Method: The method included a scoping literature review, a national survey of 1612 voluntary sector organisations, interviews with 27 national stakeholders and detailed mapping of the voluntary sector organisation provision in two regions (the north and south of England) to develop a taxonomy of voluntary sector organisations and to select four case studies. The case studies examined voluntary sector organisation crisis care provision as a system through interviews with local stakeholders ( n  = 73), eight focus groups with service users and carers and, at an individual level, narrative interviews with service users ( n  = 47) and carers ( n  = 12) to understand their crisis experience and service journey. There was extensive patient and public involvement in the study, including service users as co-researchers, to ensure validity. This affected the conduct of the study and the interpretation of the findings. The quality and the impact of the involvement was evaluated and commended., Main Findings: A mental health crisis is considered a biographical disruption. Voluntary sector organisations can make an important contribution, characterised by a socially oriented and relational approach. Five types of relevant voluntary sector organisations were identified: (1) crisis-specific, (2) general mental health, (3) population-focused, (4) life-event-focused and (5) general social and community voluntary sector organisations. These voluntary sector organisations provide a range of support and have specific expertise. The availability and access to voluntary sector organisations varies and inequalities were evident for rural communities; black, Asian and minority ethnic communities; people who use substances; and people who identified as having a personality disorder. There was little evidence of well-developed crisis systems, with an underdeveloped approach to prevention and a lack of ongoing support., Limitations: The survey response was low, reflecting the nature of voluntary sector organisations and demands on their time. This was a descriptive study, so evaluating outcomes from voluntary sector organisation support was beyond the scope of the study., Conclusions: The current policy discourse frames a mental health crisis as an urgent event. Viewing a mental health crisis as a biographical disruption would better enable a wide range of contributory factors to be considered and addressed. Voluntary sector organisations have a distinctive and important role to play. The breadth of this contribution needs to be acknowledged and its role as an accessible alternative to inpatient provision prioritised., Future Work: A whole-system approach to mental health crisis provision is needed. The NHS, local authorities and the voluntary sector should establish how to effectively collaborate to meet the local population’s needs and to ensure the sustainability of the voluntary sector. Service users and carers from all communities need to be central to this., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research ; Vol. 8, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., (Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Newbigging et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.)

Background: Serious mental illness, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychoses, is linked with high disease burden, poor outcomes, high treatment costs and lower life expectancy. In the UK, most people with serious mental illness are treated in primary care by general practitioners, who are financially incentivised to meet quality targets for patients with chronic conditions, including serious mental illness, under the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The Quality and Outcomes Framework, however, omits important aspects of quality., Objectives: We examined whether or not better quality of primary care for people with serious mental illness improved a range of outcomes., Design and Setting: We used administrative data from English primary care practices that contribute to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database, linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, accident and emergency attendances, Office for National Statistics mortality data and community mental health records in the Mental Health Minimum Data Set. We used survival analysis to estimate whether or not selected quality indicators affect the time until patients experience an outcome., Participants: Four cohorts of people with serious mental illness, depending on the outcomes examined and inclusion criteria., Interventions: Quality of care was measured with (1) Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators (care plans and annual physical reviews) and (2) non-Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators identified through a systematic review (antipsychotic polypharmacy and continuity of care provided by general practitioners)., Main Outcome Measures: Several outcomes were examined: emergency admissions for serious mental illness and ambulatory care sensitive conditions; all unplanned admissions; accident and emergency attendances; mortality; re-entry into specialist mental health services; and costs attributed to primary, secondary and community mental health care., Results: Care plans were associated with lower risk of accident and emergency attendance (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.80), serious mental illness admission (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.75), ambulatory care sensitive condition admission (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.83), and lower overall health-care (£53), primary care (£9), hospital (£26) and mental health-care costs (£12). Annual reviews were associated with reduced risk of accident and emergency attendance (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.85), serious mental illness admission (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.84), ambulatory care sensitive condition admission (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.87), and lower overall health-care (£34), primary care (£9) and mental health-care costs (£30). Higher general practitioner continuity was associated with lower risk of accident and emergency presentation (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.97) and ambulatory care sensitive condition admission (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.92), but not with serious mental illness admission. High continuity was associated with lower primary care costs (£3). Antipsychotic polypharmacy was not statistically significantly associated with the risk of unplanned admission, death or accident and emergency presentation. None of the quality measures was statistically significantly associated with risk of re-entry into specialist mental health care., Limitations: There is risk of bias from unobserved factors. To mitigate this, we controlled for observed patient characteristics at baseline and adjusted for the influence of time-invariant unobserved patient differences., Conclusions: Better performance on Quality and Outcomes Framework measures and continuity of care are associated with better outcomes and lower resource utilisation, and could generate moderate cost savings., Future Work: Future research should examine the impact of primary care quality on measures that capture broader aspects of health and functioning., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research ; Vol. 8, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., (Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Jacobs et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.)