Intensive home treatment may offer an alternative to inpatient care for patients in acute psychiatric crisis – but the intervention is no outright substitute, new research suggests.
However, there was no difference between treatment groups in improvement in quality of life or patient satisfaction; and a reduction in symptom severity noted after 6 weeks of home treatment faded within 6 months.
“We found no differences in admission rates either, which suggests that intensive home treatment is not a substitute for inpatient care but a different treatment opportunity for psychiatric patients in crisis,” Jurgen Cornelis, MD, Arkin Institute for Mental Health, Amsterdam, and colleagues write.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
“Intensive home treatment is increasingly popular as an alternative to hospitalization. It was developed to prevent or reduce levels of inpatient care and facilitate the transition between inpatient care and low-intensity outpatient care,” the investigators write.
However, there have previously been only two randomized controlled trials published that assessed this type of care, resulting in “somewhat conflicting findings,” they add.
For the current study, participants presented to psychiatric emergency wards at two medical centers in the Netherlands. They were included only if they were able to offer informed consent within 14 days.
The intensive home treatment group (n = 183) worked with a multidisciplinary team that designed a care plan tailored to their specific crisis. Treatment components included pharmacotherapy, up to three home visits each day, psychoeducation, brief supportive and cognitive behavioral therapy, social care, and support and empowerment of the patient’s informal care system.
The usual care group (n = 63) commonly received a combination of highly intensive inpatient treatment in the first phase and outpatient treatment up to two times a week in the second phase. Treatment included similar components as those in intensive home treatment.
The most common primary clinical diagnosis in both groups was mood disorder, followed by psychotic disorders, personality disorders, or anxiety disorders.
The home treatment group had a significantly higher total mean item score on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) at baseline (2.23 vs. 2.04, P = .04).
Results at 6 weeks showed the number of hospital days was 25.3% lower in the home treatment group, compared with those who received usual care.
That trend continued at 1 year, with the intensive home treatment group recording 36.6% fewer hospital days than the usual care group (mean, 42.5 days vs. 67 days, respectively; P = .03).
However, the number of patients who were admitted in the first 6 weeks and at 1 year stayed the same, as did the mean number of admissions per patient over 12 months.
The home treatment group reported significantly fewer symptoms on the BPRS depression and anxiety scale at 6 weeks, compared with the usual treatment group (P = .025), but that difference was not maintained after 6 months.
The number of adverse events, including suicide attempts, was similar between the groups. Three patients in the home treatment group and two in the usual care group died by suicide.
“Future research should focus on which components of intensive home treatment or hospitalization can be used when, for whom, and meet which goals, so that both hospital care and intensive home treatment can be used proportionally and efficiently for patients in psychiatric crisis,” the investigators write.