Taking the next step: Improving care transitions from a first-episode psychosis service
- PMID: 35029048
- DOI: 10.1111/eip.13127
Taking the next step: Improving care transitions from a first-episode psychosis service
Abstract
Aims: First-episode services (FES) improve outcomes in recent onset psychosis, but there is growing concern about how patients fare after discharge from these time-limited services.
Methods: A quality improvement approach (QI) was used to improve patient engagement in the discharge planning process (disposition), and successful engagement in care 3 months after discharge from the FES (transfer). Data from 144 consecutive discharges over 62 months are presented. A planning phase was followed by recurrent Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles (PDSA) that included the introduction of proactive efforts targeting disposition planning (with patients and families) and follow-up to facilitate transfer after discharge. Fisher's exact test was used to compare disposition and transfer outcomes across the QI phases.
Results: This QI approach was sustained through a three-fold escalation in discharge volume. Transfer status at 3 months was significantly different between the pre- and post PDSA phases (p = .02). A greater proportion were confirmed transfers post-PDSA (54.3 vs. 37%), but of those with known status at 3 months, similar proportions were successfully transferred (76, 73%). Patients discharged post-PDSA were less likely to have unknown treatment status (26 vs. 51%). Disposition outcomes were also significantly improved post-PDSA (p = .03). Patients were more likely to engage with discharge planning (69.7 vs. 48.6%) and less likely to be lost to follow-up (13.8 vs. 25.7%), or to refuse assistance (11.0 vs. 20.0%).
Conclusion: This QI approach offers a feasible way to improve disposition and transfer after FES and can be built upon in efforts to sustain functional gains in onward pathways.
Keywords: Care transitions; coordinated specialty care; early intervention; first-episode psychosis; quality improvement.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Ahmed, S., Khan, R., Pursglove, D., O'Donoghue, J., & Chakraborty, N. (2015). Discharges from an early intervention in psychosis service: Where do patients stand after 3 years? Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 9(1), 48-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12148
-
- Ahmed, S., Peters, K. Z., & Chakraborty, N. (2019). Discharges from an early intervention in psychosis service: The effect of patient characteristics on discharge destination. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 13(4), 740-744. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12552
-
- Albert, N., Melau, M., Jensen, H., Emborg, C., Jepsen, J. R., Fagerlund, B., … Nordentoft, M. (2017). Five years of specialised early intervention versus two years of specialised early intervention followed by three years of standard treatment for patients with a first episode psychosis: Randomised, superiority, parallel group trial in Denmark (OPUS II). BMJ, 356, i6681. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6681
-
- Breitborde, N. J. K., & Moe, A. M. (2016). Early intervention in psychosis in the United States: From science to policy reform. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4(1), 79-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216683965
-
- Conlon, M., Tew, J., Solai, L. K., Gopalan, P., Azzam, P., & Karp, J. F. (2020). Care transitions in the psychiatric hospital: Focus on older adults. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 28(3), 368-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2019.07.006
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous