Dataset Information

Impact of family practice continuity of care on unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To investigate whether continuity of care in family practice reduces unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness (SMI). DATA SOURCES:Linked administrative data on family practice and hospital utilization by people with SMI in England, 2007-2014. STUDY DESIGN:This observational cohort study used discrete-time survival analysis to investigate the relationship between continuity of care in family practice and unplanned hospital use: emergency department (ED) presentations, and unplanned admissions for SMI and ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSC). The analysis distinguishes between relational continuity and management/ informational continuity (as captured by care plans) and accounts for unobserved confounding by examining deviation from long-term averages. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS:Individual-level family practice administrative data linked to hospital administrative data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Higher relational continuity was associated with 8-11 percent lower risk of ED presentation and 23-27 percent lower risk of ACSC admissions. Care plans were associated with 29 percent lower risk of ED presentation, 39 percent lower risk of SMI admissions, and 32 percent lower risk of ACSC admissions. CONCLUSIONS:Family practice continuity of care can reduce unplanned hospital use for physical and mental health of people with SMI.

SUBMITTER: Ride J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6863233 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of family practice continuity of care on unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness.

Ride Jemimah J Kasteridis Panagiotis P Gutacker Nils N Doran Tim T Rice Nigel N Gravelle Hugh H Kendrick Tony T Mason Anne A Goddard Maria M Siddiqi Najma N Gilbody Simon S Williams Rachael R Aylott Lauren L Dare Ceri C Jacobs Rowena R

Health services research 20191009 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate whether continuity of care in family practice reduces unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness (SMI).<h4>Data sources</h4>Linked administrative data on family practice and hospital utilization by people with SMI in England, 2007-2014.<h4>Study design</h4>This observational cohort study used discrete-time survival analysis to investigate the relationship between continuity of care in family practice and unplanned hospital use: emergency depart ...[more]

PMID: 31598965

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeople with a serious mental illness are more likely to smoke more and to be more dependent smokers than the general population. This may be due to a wide range of factors that could include a common aetiology to both smoking and the illness, self medication, smoking to alleviate adverse effects of medications, boredom in the existing environment, or a combination of these factors. It is important to undertake this review to facilitate improvements in both the health and safety of people with serious mental illness who smoke, and to reduce the overall burden of costs (both financial and health) to the smoker and, eventually, to the taxpayer.ObjectivesTo review the effects of smoking cessation advice for people with serious mental illness.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialized Trials Register up to 2 April 2015, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and trial registries. We also undertook unsystematic searches of a sample of the component databases (BNI, CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO), up to 2 April 2015, and searched references of all identified studiesSelection criteriaWe planned to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that focussed on smoking cessation advice versus standard care or comparing smoking cessation advice with other more focussed methods of delivering care or information.Data collection and analysisThe review authors (PK, AC, and DB) independently screened search results but did not identify any trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review.Main resultsWe did not identify any RCTs that evaluated advice regarding smoking cessation for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to smokers with serious mental illness is possible.Authors' conclusionsPeople with serious mental illness are more likely to smoke than the general population. Yet we could not find any high quality evidence to guide the smoking cessation advice healthcare professionals pass onto service users. This is an area where trials are possible and needed.

Project description:BackgroundPeer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status.Selection criteriaWe selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse).Data collection and analysisThe authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.Main resultsThis review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes.Authors' conclusionsCurrently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.

Dataset Information

Impact of family practice continuity of care on unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness.

Publications

Impact of family practice continuity of care on unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets