Supported discharge service versus inpatient care evaluation (SITE): a randomised controlled trial comparing effectiveness of an intensive community care service versus inpatient treatment as usual for adolescents with severe psychiatric disorders: self-harm, functional impairment, and educational and clinical outcomes.

Clinical guidelines recommend intensive community care service treatment (ICCS) to reduce adolescent psychiatric inpatient care. We have previously reported that the addition of ICCS led to a substantial decrease in hospital use and improved school re-integration. The aim of this study is to undertake a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing an inpatient admission followed by an early discharge supported by ICCS with usual inpatient admission (treatment as usual; TAU). In this paper, we report the impact of ICCS on self-harm and other clinical and educational outcomes. 106 patients aged 12-18 admitted for psychiatric inpatient care were randomised (1:1) to either ICCS or TAU. Six months after randomisation, we compared the two treatment arms on the number and severity of self-harm episodes, the functional impairment, severity of psychiatric symptoms, clinical improvement, reading and mathematical ability, weight, height and the use of psychological therapy and medication. At six-month follow-up, there were no differences between the two groups on most measures. Patients receiving ICCS were significantly less likely to report multiple episodes (five or more) of self-harm (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.05-0.64). Patients admitted to private inpatient units spent on average 118.4 (95% CI: 28.2-208.6) fewer days in hospitals if they were in the ICCS group compared to TAU. The addition of ICCS to TAU may lower the risk of multiple self-harm and may reduce the duration of inpatient stay, especially in those patients admitted for private care. Early discharge with ICCS appears to be a viable alternative to standard inpatient treatment.

Comparison of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intensive community supported discharge service versus treatment as usual for adolescents with psychiatric emergencies: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive community treatment to reduce dependency on adolescent psychiatric inpatient care is recommended in guidelines but has not been assessed in a randomised controlled trial in the UK. We designed a supported discharge service (SDS) provided by an intensive community treatment team and compared outcomes with usual care. METHODS: Eligible patients for this randomised controlled trial were younger than 18 years and had been admitted for psychiatric inpatient care in the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. Patients were assigned 1:1 to either the SDS or to usual care by use of a computer-generated pseudorandom code with random permuted blocks of varying sizes. The primary outcome was number of inpatient bed-days, change in Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) scores, and change in Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) scores at 6 months, assessed by intention to treat. Cost-effectiveness was explored with acceptability curves based on CGAS scores and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) calculated from the three-level EuroQol measure of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), taking a health and social care perspective. This study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN82129964. FINDINGS: Hospital use at 6 months was significantly lower in the SDS group than in the usual care group (unadjusted median 34 IQR 17-63 vs 50 days, 19-125, p=0·04). The ratio of mean total inpatient days for usual care to SDS was 1·67 (95% CI 1·02-2·81, p=0·04), which decreased to 1·65 (0·99-2·77, p=0·057) when adjusted for differences in hospital use before randomisation. Scores for SDQ and CGAS did not differ between groups. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve based on QALYs showed that the probability of SDS being cost-effective compared with usual care was around 60% with a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000-30 000 per QALY, and that based on CGAS showed at least 58% probability of SDS being cost-effective compared with usual care irrespective of willingness to pay. We recorded no adverse events attributable to SDS or usual care. INTERPRETATION: SDS provided by an intensive community treatment team reduced bed usage at 6 months' follow-up but had no effect on functional status and symptoms of mental health disorders compared with usual care. The possibility of preventing admissions, particularly through features such as reduced self-harm and improved reintegration into school, with intensive community treatment should be investigated in future studies. FUNDING: South London and Maudsley NHS Trust.