Reducing Delay From Referral to Admission at a U.S. First-Episode Psychosis Service: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

Duration of untreated psychosis (DUP), the period between psychosis onset and entry into care, is a time of great vulnerability. Longer DUP predicts poorer outcomes, and delayed treatment access can limit the effectiveness of coordinated specialty care (CSC) services. This column details one component of a broader early detection campaign, a quality improvement intervention focusing on reducing the delay between confirmation of eligibility and admission to care within a benchmark period of 7 days. Median delay significantly fell (from 13.5 to 3 days), and the proportion of admissions that met the benchmark increased (from 33% to 71%) over 4 years. This intervention provides a sustainable model to reduce wait times at CSC services.

Taking the next step: Improving care transitions from a first-episode psychosis service.

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.