Melbourne School of Population and Global Health - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableOutcomes of Victorian Prevention and Recovery Care Services: A matched pairs comparison(SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2021-12)OBJECTIVE: In Victoria, Prevention and Recovery Care Services have been established to provide a partial alternative to inpatient admissions through short-term residential mental health care in the community. This study set out to determine whether Prevention and Recovery Care Services are achieving their objectives in relation to reducing service use and costs, fostering least restrictive care and leading to positive clinical outcomes. METHODS: We matched 621 consumers whose index admission in 2014 was to a Prevention and Recovery Care ('PARCS consumers') with 621 similar consumers whose index admission in the same year was to an acute inpatient unit and who had no Prevention and Recovery Care stays for the study period ('inpatient-only consumers'). We used routinely collected data to compare them on a range of outcomes. RESULTS: Prevention and Recovery Care Services consumers made less subsequent use of acute inpatient services and, on balance, incurred costs that were similar to or lower than inpatient-only consumers. They were also less likely to spend time on an involuntary treatment order following their index admission. Prevention and Recovery Care Services consumers also experienced positive clinical outcomes over the course of their index admission, but the magnitude of this improvement was not as great as for inpatient-only consumers. This type of clinical improvement is important for Prevention and Recovery Care Services, but they may place greater emphasis on personal recovery as an outcome. CONCLUSION: Prevention and Recovery Care Services can provide an alternative, less restrictive care option for eligible consumers who might otherwise be admitted to an acute inpatient unit and do so at no greater cost.
-
ItemSimilarities and differences in people accessing prevention and recovery care services and inpatient units in Victoria, Australia(BMC, 2020-06-16)BACKGROUND: There is an emerging international literature demonstrating clinical and cost-effectiveness of sub-acute residential mental health services. To date, however, there is limited information on the profile of consumers accessing these models of care. This study aimed to understand the profile of the population served by adult sub-acute residential mental health services in Victoria, Australia (known as Prevention and Recovery Care; PARC) and to compare PARC service consumers with consumers admitted to psychiatric inpatient units within public hospitals. METHOD: Using 5 years (2012-2016) of a state-wide database of routinely collected individual level mental health service data, we describe the socio-demographic and clinical profile of PARC service consumers compared to consumers of psychiatric inpatient units including for primary diagnosis and illness severity. Using admissions as the unit of analysis, we identify the characteristics that distinguish PARC service admissions from psychiatric inpatient admissions. We also examine and compare length of stay for the different admission types. RESULTS: We analysed 78,264 admissions representing 34,906 individuals. The profile of PARC service consumers differed from those admitted to inpatient units including for sex, age, diagnosis and illness severity. The odds of an admission being to a PARC service was associated with several socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Being male or in the youngest age grouping (< 20 years) significantly reduced the odds of admission to PARC services. The presence of primary diagnoses of schizophrenia and related disorders, mood, anxiety or personality disorders, all significantly increased the odds of admission to PARC services. Predictors of length of stay were consistent across PARC and inpatient admission types. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest PARC services may serve an overlapping but distinguishably different consumer group than inpatient psychiatric units. Future research on sub-acute mental health services should be cognizant of these consumer differences, particularly when assessing the long-term effectiveness of this service option.
-
ItemPrevention and Recovery Care Services in Australia: Developing a State-Wide Typology of a Subacute Residential Mental Health Service Model(FRONTIERS MEDIA SA, 2019-06-11)Aims: Community-based residential alternatives to hospitalization are an emerging service model. Evidence for their acceptability and effectiveness is promising but limited. Prevention and Recovery Care (PARC) services are one such residential model, offering short-term subacute treatment and care (usually between 7 and 28 days). PARC services in Victoria, Australia, are designed to support consumers with severe mental illness to either avoid a psychiatric hospital admission (step-up care) or transition from hospital back into the community (step-down care). As a precursor to a series of studies investigating the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of PARC services, we aimed to investigate whether a typology of PARC services can be developed. Methods: A manager or other appropriately knowledgeable staff member from each of the 19 adult PARC services included in the study completed a tool based on PARC operational guidelines (the Victorian PARC service mapping questionnaire) and a validated instrument measuring the quality of care in residential mental health settings (the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care, QuIRC). Thirty (of 42) stakeholders participated in a modified Delphi study to select 23 from the available 230 variables for entry into a hierarchical cluster analysis. Results: Cluster analysis produced three clusters of equal dissimilarity. At the 90% confidence level, there were four variables which were significantly different between clusters. These were the year the PARC was opened, the QuIRC Living Environment domain score, the proportion of all admissions that were a step-down admission from an inpatient unit, and how often families were invited to care meetings. Sensitivity analyses suggested the findings were robust to the method used to identify clusters. Conclusions: Although PARC services were broadly similar, their identified differences suggest there is variable model implementation across Victoria sufficient to generate a PARC service typology. This typology may prove important for interpreting differences in outcomes experienced by consumers and carers using PARC services, when applied in our analyses of service effectiveness. The value of conducting service mapping and typology studies is underscored. Further research to characterize subacute residential services, including recovery-promoting features of the built environment, is warranted.