Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:33:23.859Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

High Intensity User Quality Improvement Project

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Heba Allam*
Affiliation:
Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, Dartford, United Kingdom
Rhian Bradley
Affiliation:
Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, Dartford, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

To ensure that patients who are high intensity users of acute mental health services (136 suite, Liaison, and inpatient admissions) have a ‘safety plan’ in place .This should contain person centred and specific recommendations to avert crisis and guide acute clinicians in managing care in a crisis situation.

Methods

Audit of electronic health care records of top 10 patients who most frequent attend each of s136 suite, LPS and inpatient wards (26 in total) in the period 05/2021 to 04/2022.

Process mapping

Driver diagram

Coproduction via patient engagement team

Focus group-across care groups and lived experience

Results

-Audit of 26 identified HIU – whilst most (>80%) had a ‘safety plan’ in place, these lacked sufficient detail to avert ‘crisis’ and guide appropriate treatment should the situation escalate. The most frequent diagnosis was EUPD (77%). Most (93%) were open to CPA pathway.

  • Process mapping – visual representation of crisis planning process within CPA process.

  • Driver Diagram – primary and secondary drivers leading to change ideas of: additional ‘HIU response plan’ template; best practice example to guide care coordinators; process of flagging up HIU to community mental health services.

  • Focus group – themes included the importance of : joint working across care groups’ transparency with patients regarding professional opinion; consistency of interventions during a ‘crisis’; and coproduction of safety plans.

  • HIU response plans are incorporated into the safety plans of 20/26 HIUs.

  • PDSA process ongoing – quality assurance and clinical effectiveness of changes to be reviewed. Further change ideas sought through QI process.

Conclusion

High intensity users who often present in ‘crisis’ to acute mental health services, have unmet needs.

This cohort require an additional framework to meet their needs.

When patients experience a mental health ‘crisis’, a consistent and clear treatment response is experienced as helpful.

Safety/crisis planning is thus an important aspect of meeting needs.

HIU response plans’ can be incorporated into a patients ‘safety plan’ to ensure that individualised and specific guidance is available.

Best practice example of ‘HIU response plans’ can empower community mental health colleagues to co-produce such plans.

Type
Quality Improvement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.