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: 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]

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]

Objective: There are presently no instruments available in German language to assess the therapeutic relationship in psychiatric care. This study validates the German version of the Scale to Assess the Therapeutic Relationship in Community Mental Health Care (D-STAR). Method: 460 persons with severe mental illness and 154 clinicians who had participated in a multicenter RCT testing a discharge planning intervention completed the D-STAR. Psychometric properties were established via item analysis, analyses of missing values, internal consistency, and confirmatory factor analysis. Furthermore, convergent validity was scrutinized via calculating correlations of the D-STAR scales with two measures of treatment satisfaction. Results: As in the original English version, fit indices of a 3-factor model of the therapeutic relationship were only moderate. However, the feasibility and internal consistency of the D-STAR was good, and correlations with other measures suggested reasonable convergent validity. Conclusions: The psychometric properties of the D-STAR are acceptable. Its use can be recommended in German-speaking countries to assess the therapeutic relationship in both routine care and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The health economic evaluation of community mental health interventions can contribute to an optimization of the allocation of mental health care resources. Existing studies on the health economic evaluation of community mental health interventions include a wide range of treatment options from the deinstitutionalization of long-term inpatients into community-based services to specialized services for specific patient groups. The results of these studies indicate that community-based mental health care is not generally less costly in comparison to more institutionalized forms of care. Programs that are based on the ACT approach have been found to be more efficient than inpatient care. Compared to the current standard of mental health care in most western European countries, an intensification of community mental health interventions could increase the efficiency of psychiatric treatment especially for heavy users and first episode patients. However, methodological flaws and a lack of national studies limit the validity of current health economic investigations, particularly for Germany. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Germany turned towards community-based mental health care in the mid seventies, during a general climate of social and political reform. The continuing deinstitutionalisation process and the implementation of community mental health services was considerably affected by the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990, which required dramatic changes in the structure and quality of the mental health care system of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). Overall, German mental health care is organised as a subsidiary system, where planning and regulating mental health care is the responsibility of the 16 federal states. So German mental health care provision is spread among many sectors and characterised by considerable regional differences. A key characteristic is the particularly wide gap between inpatient and outpatient services, which are funded separately and staffed by different teams. In 2003 the total number of psychiatric beds was a mere two thirds of the overall bed capacity in 1991, the first year as a re-unified Germany, when psychiatric beds in East and West Germany totalled 80,275. From 1970 onwards the number of psychiatric beds was cut by roughly half. So the momentum of the reform has been strong enough to assimilate the completely different mental health care system of the former German Democratic Republic and, in the course of a decade, to re-structure mental health services for an additional 17–18 million new inhabitants. In an ongoing struggle to adapt to changing administrative set-ups, legal frameworks, and financial constraints, psychiatry in Germany in currently facing specific problems and is seriously challenged to defend to considerable achievements of the past. A major obstacle to achieving this aim lies in the fragmented system of mental health care provision and mental health care funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The "Psychiatrie-Enquete" (German Report on the State of Psychiatry) is 40 years old this year. It has always been inspirational; also internationally., Objective: Which innovative elements of community mental health services can be found in an international perspective?, Materials and Methods: Narrative review., Results: Community mental health care is a lively field with much research and innovative practice. With assertive community treatment (ACT) and home treatment (HT), internationally well-evaluated forms of community mental health care are available., Conclusion: Recovery-based and peer-to-peer approaches hold promise for the future. In terms of mid- and long-term perspectives, an increase in patient-centering via individualization of mental health care and a better implementation of community mental health interventions would be desirable in Germany.