Improving emergency department care for adults presenting with mental illness: a systematic review of strategies and their impact on outcomes, experience, and performance.

Background: Care delivery for the increasing number of people presenting at hospital emergency departments (EDs) with mental illness is a challenging issue. This review aimed to synthesise the research evidence associated with strategies used to improve ED care delivery outcomes, experience, and performance for adults presenting with mental illness. Method: We systematically reviewed the evidence regarding the effects of ED-based interventions for mental illness on patient outcomes, patient experience, and system performance, using a comprehensive search strategy designed to identify published empirical studies. Systematic searches in Scopus, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, and Medline were conducted in September 2023 (from inception; review protocol was prospectively registered in Prospero CRD42023466062). Eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) primary research study, published in English; and (2) (a) reported an implemented model of care or system change within the hospital ED context, (b) focused on adult mental illness presentations, and (c) evaluated system performance, patient outcomes, patient experience, or staff experience. Pairs of reviewers independently assessed study titles, abstracts, and full texts according to pre-established inclusion criteria with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Independent reviewers extracted data from the included papers using Covidence (2023), and the quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute suite of critical appraisal tools. Results: A narrative synthesis was performed on the included 46 studies, comprising pre-post (n = 23), quasi-experimental (n = 6), descriptive (n = 6), randomised controlled trial (RCT; n = 3), cohort (n = 2), cross-sectional (n = 2), qualitative (n = 2), realist evaluation (n = 1), and time series analysis studies (n = 1). Eleven articles focused on presentations related to substance use disorder presentation, 9 focused on suicide and deliberate self-harm presentations, and 26 reported mental illness presentations in general. Strategies reported include models of care (e.g., ED-initiated Medications for Opioid Use Disorder, ED-initiated social support, and deliberate self-harm), decision support tools, discharge and transfer refinements, case management, adjustments to liaison psychiatry services, telepsychiatry, changes to roles and rostering, environmental changes (e.g., specialised units within the ED), education, creation of multidisciplinary teams, and care standardisations. System performance measures were reported in 33 studies (72%), with fewer studies reporting measures of patient outcomes (n = 19, 41%), patient experience (n = 10, 22%), or staff experience (n = 14, 30%). Few interventions reported outcomes across all four domains. Heterogeneity in study samples, strategies, and evaluated outcomes makes adopting existing strategies challenging. Conclusion: Care for mental illness is complex, particularly in the emergency setting. Strategies to provide care must align ED system goals with patient goals and staff experience.

Strategies to improve care for older adults who present to the emergency department: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to examine the relationship between strategies to improve care delivery for older adults in ED and evaluation measures of patient outcomes, patient experience, staff experience, and system performance. METHODS: A systematic review of English language studies published since inception to December 2022, available from CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and Scopus was conducted. Studies were reviewed by pairs of independent reviewers and included if they met the following criteria: participant mean age of ≥ 65 years; ED setting or directly influenced provision of care in the ED; reported on improvement interventions and strategies; reported patient outcomes, patient experience, staff experience, or system performance. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by pairs of independent reviewers using The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Data were synthesised using a hermeneutic approach. RESULTS: Seventy-six studies were included in the review, incorporating strategies for comprehensive assessment and multi-faceted care (n = 32), targeted care such as management of falls risk, functional decline, or pain management (n = 27), medication safety (n = 5), and trauma care (n = 12). We found a misalignment between comprehensive care delivered in ED for older adults and ED performance measures oriented to rapid assessment and referral. Eight (10.4%) studies reported patient experience and five (6.5%) reported staff experience. CONCLUSION: It is crucial that future strategies to improve care delivery in ED align the needs of older adults with the purpose of the ED system to ensure sustainable improvement effort and critical functioning of the ED as an interdependent component of the health system. Staff and patient input at the design stage may advance prioritisation of higher-impact interventions aligned with the pace of change and illuminate experience measures. More consistent reporting of interventions would inform important contextual factors and allow for replication.

Strategies to Improve Care in the Emergency Department for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Adults: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The emergency department (ED) is an important gateway into the health system for people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds; their experience in the ED is likely to impact the way they access care in the future. Our review aimed to describe interventions used to improve ED health care delivery for adults from a CALD background. METHODS: An electronic search of four databases was conducted to identify empirical studies that reported interventions with a primary focus of improving ED care for CALD adults (aged ≥ 18 years), with measures relating to ED system performance, patient outcomes, patient experience, or staff experience. Studies published from inception to November 2022 were included. We excluded non-empirical studies, studies where an intervention was not provided in ED, papers where the full text was unavailable, or papers published in a language other than English. The intervention strategies were categorised thematically, and measures were tabulated. RESULTS: Following the screening of 3654 abstracts, 89 articles underwent full text review; 16 articles met the inclusion criteria. Four clear strategies for targeting action tailored to the CALD population of interest were identified: improving self-management of health issues, improving communication between patients and providers, adhering to good clinical practice, and building health workforce capacity. CONCLUSIONS: The four strategies identified provide a useful framework for targeted action tailored to the population and outcome of interest. These detailed examples show how intervention design must consider intersecting socio-economic barriers, so as not to perpetuate existing disparity. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022379584.

Built to last? Barriers and facilitators of healthcare program sustainability: a systematic integrative review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and facilitators associated with the sustainability of implemented and evaluated improvement programs in healthcare delivery systems. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Six academic databases were searched to identify relevant peer-reviewed journal articles published in English between July 2011 and June 2022. Studies were included if they reported on healthcare program sustainability and explicitly identified barriers to, and facilitators of, sustainability. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic integrative review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Study quality was appraised using Hawker's Quality Assessment Tool. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: A team of reviewers screened eligible studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted the data independently using a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet. Barriers and facilitators were extracted and mapped to the Integrated Sustainability Framework (ISF). Frequency counts of reported barriers/facilitators were performed across the included studies. RESULTS: Of the 124 studies included in this review, almost half utilised qualitative designs (n = 52; 41.9%) and roughly one third were conducted in the USA (n = 43; 34.7%). Few studies (n = 29; 23.4%) reported on program sustainability beyond 5 years of program implementation and only 16 of them (55.2%) defined sustainability. Factors related to the ISF categories of inner setting (n = 99; 79.8%), process (n = 99; 79.8%) and intervention characteristics (n = 72; 58.1%) were most frequently reported. Leadership/support (n = 61; 49.2%), training/support/supervision (n = 54; 43.5%) and staffing/turnover (n = 50; 40.3%) were commonly identified barriers or facilitators of sustainability across included studies. Forty-six (37.1%) studies reported on the outer setting category: funding (n = 26; 56.5%), external leadership by stakeholders (n = 16; 34.8%), and socio-political context (n = 14; 30.4%). Eight studies (6.5%) reported on discontinued programs, with factors including funding and resourcing, poor fit, limited planning, and intervention complexity contributing to discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the importance of taking into consideration the inner setting, processes, intervention characteristics and outer setting factors when sustaining healthcare programs, and the need for long-term program evaluations. There is a need to apply consistent definitions and implementation frameworks across studies to strengthen evidence in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/11/e018568 .

What factors are considered in hospital funding models? A review of the literature on health services funding in organisation for economic co-operation and development countries.

BACKGROUND: One of the most difficult challenges in healthcare involves equitable allocation of resources. Our review aimed to identify international funding models in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for government-funded public hospitals and evidence underpinning their efficacy, via review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature. METHODS: Ovid-Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and PubMed were searched for peer-reviewed literature. Advanced Google searches and targeted hand searches of relevant organisational websites identified grey literature. Inclusion criteria were: English language, published between 2011 and 2022, and that the article: (1) focused on healthcare funding; (2) reported on or identified specific factors, indexes, algorithms or formulae associated with healthcare funding; and (3) referred to countries that are members of the OECD, excluding the United States (US). RESULTS: For peer-reviewed literature 1189 abstracts and 35 full-texts were reviewed; six articles met the inclusion criteria. For grey literature, 2996 titles or abstracts and 37 full-texts were reviewed; five articles met the inclusion criteria. Healthcare funding arrangements employed in 15 OECD countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom [UK; specifically, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland]) were identified, but papers reported population-based funding arrangements for specific regions rather than hospital-specific models. CONCLUSIONS: While some models adjusted for deprivation and ethnicity factors, none of the identified documents reported on health systems that adjusted funding allocation for social determinants such as health literacy levels.

Experience-based codesign approach to improve care in Australian emergency departments for complex consumer cohorts: the MyED project protocol, Stages 1.1-1.3.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) care must adapt to meet current and future demands. In Australia, ED quality measures (eg, prolonged length of stay, re-presentations or patient experience) are worse for older adults with multiple comorbidities, people who have a disability, those who present with a mental health condition, Indigenous Australians, and those with a culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) background. Strengthened ED performance relies on understanding the social and systemic barriers and preferences for care of these different cohorts, and identifying viable solutions that may result in sustained improvement by service providers. A collaborative 5-year project (MyED) aims to codesign, with ED users and providers, new or adapted models of care that improve ED performance, improve patient outcomes and improve patient experience for these five cohorts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Experience-based codesign using mixed methods, set in three hospitals in one health district in Australia. This protocol introduces the staged and incremental approach to the whole project, and details the first research elements: ethnographic observations at the ED care interface, interviews with providers and interviews with two patient cohorts-older adults and adults with a CALD background. We aim to sample a diverse range of participants, carefully tailoring recruitment and support. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/PID02749-2022/ETH02447). Prior informed written consent will be obtained from all research participants. Findings from each stage of the project will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Project outputs will be disseminated for implementation more widely across New South Wales, Australia.