Are hospital services for self-harm getting better? An observational study examining management, service provision and temporal trends in England

J Cooper, S Steeg, O Bennewith, M Lowe, D Gunnell, A House, K Hawton, N Kapur, J Cooper, S Steeg, O Bennewith, M Lowe, D Gunnell, A House, K Hawton, N Kapur

Abstract

Objectives: To describe the characteristics and management of individuals attending hospital with self-harm and assess changes in management and service quality since an earlier study in 2001, a period in which national guidance has been available.

Design: Observational study.

Setting: A stratified random sample of 32 hospitals in England, UK.

Participants: 6442 individuals presenting with 7689 episodes of self-harm during a 3-month audit period between 2010 and 2011.

Outcome: Self-harm episodes, key aspects of individual management relating to psychosocial assessment and follow-up, and a 21-item measure of service quality.

Results: Overall, 56% (3583/6442) of individuals were women and 51% (3274/6442) were aged under 35 years. Hospitals varied markedly in their management. The proportion of episodes that received a psychosocial assessment by a mental health professional ranged from 22% to 88% (median 58%, IQR 48-70%); the proportion of episodes resulting in admission to general hospitals varied from 22% to 85% (median 54%, IQR 41-63%); a referral for specialist mental health follow-up was made in 11-64% of episodes (median 28%, IQR 22-38%); a referral to non-statutory services was made in 4-62% of episodes (median 15%, IQR 8-23%); 0-21% of episodes resulted in psychiatric admission (median 7%, QR 4-12%). The specialist assessment rate varied by method of harm; the median rate for self-cutting was 45% (IQR 28-63%) vs 58% (IQR 48-73%) for self-poisoning. Compared with the 2001 study, there was little difference in the proportion of episodes receiving specialist assessment; there was a significant increase in general hospital admission but a decrease in referrals for specialist mental health follow-up. However, scores on the service quality scale had increased from a median of 11.5-14.5 (a 26% increase).

Conclusions: Services for the hospital management of self-harm remain variable despite national guidelines and policy initiatives. We found no evidence for increasing levels of assessment over time but markers of service quality may have improved. This paper forms part of the study 'Variations in self-harm service delivery: an observational study examining outcomes and temporal trends'. The National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Portfolio database registration number: HOMASH 2 (7333). The NIHR Coordinated System for gaining NHS Permission (CSP) registration number: 23226.

Keywords: ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINE.

References

    1. Bergen H, Hawton K, Waters K, et al. Premature death after self-harm: a multicentre cohort study. Lancet 2012;380:1568–74
    1. Sinclair JMA, Gray A, Hawton K. Systematic review of resource utilization in the hospital management of deliberate self-harm. Psychol Med 2006;36:1681–93
    1. Taylor TL, Hawton K, Fortune S, et al. Attitudes towards clinical services among people who self-harm: systematic review. Br J Psychiatry 2009;194:104–10
    1. Hunter C, Chantler K, Kapur N, et al. Service user perspectives on psychosocial assessment following self-harm and its impact on further help-seeking: a qualitative study. J Affect Disord 2013;145:315–23
    1. Blake DR, Mitchell JRA. Self-poisoning: management of patients in Nottingham, 1976. BMJ 1978;1:1032–5
    1. Kapur N, House A, Creed F, et al. Management of deliberate self poisoning in adults in four teaching hospitals: descriptive study. BMJ 1998;316:831–2
    1. Bennewith O, Gunnell D, Peters TJ, et al. Variations in the hospital management of self-harm in adults in England: an observational study. BMJ 2004;328:1108–9
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence The short-term physical and psychological management and secondary prevention of self-harm in primary and secondary care. Clinical Guideline 16. NICE, 2004
    1. Royal College of Psychiatrists Assessment following self-harm in adults. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2004
    1. Royal College of Psychiatrists Better services for people who self-harm project. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2005
    1. Dickson S, Steeg S, Gordon M, et al. Self-harm in Manchester 2008–2009. The Centre for Suicide Prevention, The University of Manchester, 2011
    1. Hawton K, Bergen H, Casey D, et al. Self-harm in England: a tale of three cities. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2007;42:513–21
    1. Gunnell D, Bennewith O, Peters TJ, et al. The epidemiology and management of self-harm amongst adults in England. J Public Health 2005;27:67–73
    1. Statacorp Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. Stata Corporation, College Station, 2009
    1. SPSS Inc. SPSS for Windows Release 19.0.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc, 2010
    1. Runeson B, Tidemalm D, Dahlin M, et al. Method of attempted suicide as predictor of subsequent successful suicide: national long term cohort study. BMJ 2010;340:c3222.
    1. Lilley R, Owens D, Horrocks J, et al. Hospital care and repetition following self-harm: a multicentre comparison of self-poisoning and self-injury. Br J Psychiatry 2008;192:440–5
    1. Cooper J, Kapur N, Webb R, et al. Suicide following deliberate self-harm: a 4 year cohort study. Am J Psychiatry 2005;162:297–303
    1. Kapur N, Murphy E, Cooper J, et al. Psychosocial assessment following self-harm: results from the multi-centre monitoring of self-harm project. J Affect Disord 2008;106:285–93
    1. King C. Severe mental illness: managing the boundary of a CMHT. J Mental Health 2001;10:75–86
    1. 2012. Mind for better mental health. Mental health crisis care: commissioning excellence. A briefing for Clinical Commissioning Groups. November. .
    1. Department of Health Mental health policy implementation guide. London: Community Mental Health Team, The Stationery Office, 2002
    1. Murphy E, Kapur N, Webb R, et al. Risk assessment following self-harm: comparison of mental health nurses and psychiatrists. J Adv Nurs 2011;67:127–39
    1. Department of Health. The NHS Plan. A Plan for Investment. A Plan for Reform London Stationery Office (2000) accessed April 2013. .
    1. Bergen H, Hawton K, Waters K, et al. Epidemiology and trends in non-fatal self-harm in three centres in England: 2000–2007. Br J Psychiatry 2010;197:493–8
    1. Barr W, Leitner M, Thomas J. Self-harm patients who take early discharge from the accident and emergency department: how do they differ from those who stay? Accid Emerg Nurs 2004;12:108–13
    1. Ham C, Dixon A. Tackling the problems of seriously challenged NHS providers. BMJ 2012;344:e4422.
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence The long term care and treatment of self-harm. Clinical Guideline 133. NICE, 2011
    1. Burns T, Rugkåsa J, Molodynski A, et al. Community treatment orders for patients with psychosis (OCTET): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013;381:1627–33
    1. While D, Bickley H, Roscoe A, et al. Implementation of mental health service recommendations in England and Wales and suicide rates, 1997–2006: a cross-sectional and before-and-after observational study. Lancet 2012;379:1005–12

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel