Alternatives to mental health admissions for children and adolescents experiencing mental health crises: a systematic review of the literature

Background

Mental health disorders are a substantial burden for children and young people’s (CYP) health globally (Polanczyk, Salum, Sugaya, Caye, & Rohde, 2015), with suicide a leading cause of death (Wasserman, Cheng, & Jiang, 2005). In the UK, recent data has shown that 16% of CYP have a mental health disorder, with over half of older adolescents with a disorder having self- harmed or attempted suicide (Vizard, Sadler, & Ford, 2020). Similar prevalence rates have been reported in Europe and the United States (Kovess-Masfety et al., 2016; Merikangas et al., 2010). Many CYP with mental health disorders will present to health care providers with an acute (sometimes called psychiatric) crisis due to their mental health. Such crises can be defined as subjective experiences where a change in mental wellbeing occurs and the person becomes unstable or at risk to themselves or others (Jennings & Child). In high income countries, numbers of such presentations for CYP seemed to have increased, both to secondary and primary care (Mahajan et al., 2009; Morgan et al., 2017; Newton et al., 2009; Pittsenbarger & Mannix, 2014). Severity of illness, concern about risk (especially in relation to suicide) (Hawton et al., 2012), available community services (Lancet, 2020) and social circumstances (Paranjothy et al., 2018) may mean that such presentations result in an inpatient admission. Whilst hospitalization rates for most paediatric conditions in high income countries have decreased in recent years, admissions because of mental health have increased (Torio, Encinosa, Berdahl, McCormick, & Simpson, 2015).

Inpatient mental health admissions can provide important and vital services for significantly unwell CYP (Green et al., 2007), yet they can also carry substantial burden. Mental health admissions can be lengthy, in locations away from an usual place of residence, leading to disconnection from friends and family, and separation from education or employment. These burdens are especially amplified for CYP experiencing repeated admissions (Miller et al., 2020). Inpatient mental admissions are also more costly for health care systems (Green et al., 2007) versus outpatient care. Demand can also oustrip capacity (O’Herlihy et al., 2003), resulting in admissions of CYP in adult psychiatric wards or non-mental health inpatient settings such as paediatric medical wards (Worrall et al., 2004). Safe and effective interventions acting as alternatives to inpatient admissions for CYP presenting in crisis are therefore highly favourable. Policy makers have turned attention on to this issue, for example in the UK there are strategies in place to improve community services (Alderwick & Dixon, 2019).

Developing and implementing alternatives to inpatient mental health admissions for CYP presenting in crisis requires an up-to-date synthesis of the literature. Previous systematic reviews on this topic (Kwok, Yuan, & Ougrin, 2016; Shepperd et al., 2009) are now outdated (with the latest literature search performed in 2014) and also included papers of interventions with an admission component (such as short-term hospitalisations) which could be a confounder for the effects of proposed alternatives. We therefore systematically reviewed the literature for studies of interventions reported as alternatives to a mental health admission in CYP presenting with a significant mental health crisis. We specifically examined for:

• 1) effectiveness at avoiding admission or any impact on reducing the length of an inpatient stay if one followed.

• 2) Improvements in psychological parameters for CYP secondary to such interventions.

Methods

We searched three databases: PsychInfo, PubMed and Web of Science in October 2020, with an updated search in May 2021. We used search terms to encompass “children and young people”, “mental health crisis” and “potential locations of care” (appendix A). Searches were conducted individually by two researchers (DC and IL) who selected abstracts for inclusion or exclusion. Papers were then downloaded and considered independently, with LH providing adjudication. Reference lists within studies were also screened.

We included studies reporting outcomes of interventions specifically as alternatives to a mental health admission for CYP presenting with a mental health crisis. We defined admission as any hospitalization in any inpatient setting (including general medical settings). We excluded: 1) studies where some or all participants were >18 years; 2) studies not published in English; 3) reviews; 4) papers which did not provide any outcome measures or insufficient outcome measures, or only described interventions; 4) studies where the intervention included an admission.

Independent bias assessments were conducted by DC and IL using the Cochrane Review tools for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (RCT) (Sterne et al., 2019) and non-RCT (Sterne et al., 2016). Discrepancies were discussed for agreement with final adjudication by LH.

Results

We found 782 papers in initial searches of databases and were left with 640 unique studies after duplicate removal. 71 papers were retrieved, with 60 excluded based on full text assessment. We found an additional 8 studies from screening reference lists. We included a total of 19 studies. A summary of the search with numbers is shown in figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram of included and excluded studies

8 studies were RCTs, 4 studies were service evaluations, 4 studies used an uncontrolled pre- post-treatment investigation, 2 papers used pre-intervention historical/retrospective control groups, and 1 paper used a matched control group. 14 papers were conducted in the USA, 2 papers were conducted in Germany, 2 papers were conducted in Canada and 1 paper was conducted in the UK. 2 studies reported on interventions specifically for CYP with suicidal risk, 1 for psychosis, 1 for disruptive behaviour/externalising crisis presentations and 15 were for mixed types of crisis mental health presentations. For RCTs, we found 4 papers at low risk of bias, 2 raising some concerns and 2 at high risk of bias, and for non-RCTs we found 1 paper at low risk of bias, 2 papers at moderate risk, 6 papers at serious risk of bias and 2 papers at critical risk. Detailed summaries of included studies, including bias assessment are shown in table 1. Detailed rationale for classifying final bias category for each study is shown in Appendix B.

Included papers did not allow sufficiently robust information to perform meta-analysis and so we present findings here narratively, with interventions grouped by: 1) Single-session interventions for emergency department crisis presentations; 2) Community-based crisis interventions (as i. exclusively in-home interventions, ii. interventions outside of the home but outside clinics, iii. exclusively clinic-based outpatient interventions, including intensive day treatment).

Discussion

In this systematic review of studies of alternatives to inpatient admissions for CYP presenting with a mental health crisis, we found a range of published studies on interventions in different settings. We found studies describing interventions in emergency departments, the home, other community settings and hospital-based clinics. In general, the level of evidence was poor with less than half of included studies RCTs, of which only half were considered of low risk of bias in bias assessments. Studies also varied with regard to consistency of reporting on measures on preventing admissions and psychological outcomes. This meant that robust data for meta-analysis was insufficient. The greatest level of evidence came from home treatments, in particular MST. MST was reported as improving a range of psychological parameters associated with risk for CYP (such as suicide attempts) and benefits for families (adaptation and cohesion though not maintained at 4 months); and though a large proportion of CYP appeared to still ultimately be admitted (in one study 44%), there was evidence that length of stay from these admissions was reduced compared to admission alone. We found some evidence suggesting that brief emergency department-based interventions could have a beneficial impact on admission rates, but none of these studies were RCTs, and there was no information on impact upon psychological parameters in any paper. Evidence for other community interventions, and clinic-based interventions were scarce, and generally of low quality. However, we found some evidence for reduction in admission rates and improvements in post-intervention symptom severity, child and family functioning, although these were not compared to outcomes of control groups.

Our review did not find sufficient amount of quality data to recommend a specific type of intervention for CYP presenting in crisis, a similar conclusion to the two other systematic reviews on this topic which included searches from over 6 years ago (Kwok et al., 2016; Shepperd et al., 2009). However, the evidence we have presented provides useful information for the development of new and existing services, including the potential for mix- models of care, or “menus” of care for individual patients’ needs by understanding variable benefits of different models. Given the challenges associated with the complexity of such CYP presenting in crisis, especially with regard to risk, the limited availability of good quality data is perhaps understandable. However, with such presentations increasing, and pressure on inpatient units rising (Children’s Commissioner, 2020), this is clearly an area which needs to see an increase in research as a priority. With new emphasis on improvement for CYP with mental health disorders, especially those presenting in crisis (Ougrin et al., 2018), it is likely that new models will develop. It is important that as they do so, they are robustly evaluated, in particular with comparison to controls (including for example pre-intervention controls), with consistent measurement and reporting of success at reducing absolute numbers of admissions, duration of admissions and also psychological impacts for CYP and families.

Studies should also report detail on change between groups of intervention and control, for a large proportion of studies we found in our review presented only pre and post values for intervention and control separately, and this impedes the opportunity for an appropriate pooling of studies in meta-analysis (Higgins, Churchill, Chandler, & Cumpston, 2017).

Beyond the limitations which we have highlighted above, our review has a number of strengths. We used an a priori search strategy of multiple databases, with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies and two independent researchers performed searches. We also investigated on a large range of intervention types by also including non-RCTs, in comparison to previous reviews that looked at RCTs only. We reported on all outcomes described and had two independent researchers to conduct thorough bias assessments, with a third providing final adjucation.

In conclusion, although we found a range of interventons in different settings, the quality of studies was insufficient to allow for an overall recommendation. Interventions using multi- systemic therapy at home had the best quality, with evidence suggesting benefits around avoiding admissions, length of admission and psychological outcomes. However, these interventions generally failed to show long-term effects. New models of care should be robustly evaluated using consistent outcomes.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.