Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 25;8(11):e74210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074210. eCollection 2013.
Compulsory admission to psychiatric hospitals may be distressing, disruptive to patients and families, and associated with considerable cost to the health service. Improved patient experience and cost reductions could be realised by providing cost-effective crisis planning services.
Economic evaluation within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing Joint Crisis Plans (JCP) plus treatment as usual (TAU) to TAU alone for patients aged over 16, with at least one psychiatric hospital admission in the previous two years and on the Enhanced Care Programme Approach register. JCPs, containing the patient's treatment preferences for any future psychiatric emergency, are a form of crisis intervention that aim to mitigate the negative consequences of relapse, including hospital admission and use of coercion. Data were collected at baseline and 18-months after randomisation. The primary outcome was admission to hospital under the Mental Health Act. The economic evaluation took a service perspective (health, social care and criminal justice services) and a societal perspective (additionally including criminal activity and productivity losses).
The addition of JCPs to TAU had no significant effect on compulsory admissions or total societal cost per participant over 18-months follow-up. From the service cost perspective, however, evidence suggests a higher probability (80%) of JCPs being the more cost-effective option. Exploration by ethnic group highlights distinct patterns of costs and effects. Whilst the evidence does not support the cost-effectiveness of JCPs for White or Asian ethnic groups, there is at least a 90% probability of the JCP intervention being the more cost-effective option in the Black ethnic group.
The results by ethnic group are sufficiently striking to warrant further investigation into the potential for patient gain from JCPs among black patient groups.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11501328.
强制住院可能会给患者和家属带来痛苦和困扰,同时也会给医疗服务带来巨大的经济负担。通过提供具有成本效益的危机规划服务,可以改善患者体验并降低成本。
在一项多中心随机对照试验中,对 16 岁以上、过去两年内至少有一次精神病院住院经历且在强化关怀方案登记处登记的患者,比较联合危机计划(JCP)联合常规治疗(TAU)与仅 TAU 的效果。JCP 包含患者对任何未来精神科紧急情况的治疗偏好,是一种危机干预形式,旨在减轻复发的负面影响,包括住院和使用强制手段。数据在基线和随机分组后 18 个月收集。主要结局是根据《精神卫生法》住院。经济评价从服务角度(卫生、社会护理和刑事司法服务)和社会角度(另外包括犯罪活动和生产力损失)进行。
在 18 个月的随访期间,JCP 联合 TAU 对强制性入院或总社会成本没有显著影响。然而,从服务成本的角度来看,有证据表明 JCP 更有可能具有成本效益。按族裔群体进行探索,突出了成本和效果的明显差异。虽然证据不支持 JCP 对白种人或亚洲族裔群体的成本效益,但在黑人群体中,JCP 干预措施至少有 90%的可能性更具成本效益。
按族裔群体的结果引人注目,值得进一步研究 JCP 对黑人患者群体的潜在获益。
当前对照试验 ISRCTN82242062。