Partial hospitalization: Are treatment effects maintained post‐discharge?

Abstract

Child partial hospitalization programs (CPHPs) provide specialized, intensive, interdisciplinary day treatment for children with significant social, emotional, and behavioral needs that warrant a higher level of care than outpatient therapy, but a less intensive care setting than admission to an inpatient unit. In many cases, partial hospitalization programs function as a step down from inpatient care to provide a gradual transition back into the home and school environments, where children's mental health challenges may have initially manifested, or as a means of averting a more restrictive form of care.

The systemic value of integrating an adolescent day service into an inpatient service: A qualitative case study

“…Day services (DSs) can provide a hospital-based setting delivering multidisciplinary care to young people from 9 am to 5 pm Monday to Friday (Durbin et al, 2017). They run as a standalone service or in collaboration with inpatient services (IPSs) (Thapar et al, 2017).…”

“…Firstly, if integrated with an IPS, DSs can be utilised as a 'step-down' from inpatient care, providing an in-between transition to community services (Tulloch et al, 2008). This provides a bridge between hospital and community CAMHS, ensuring a graded transition over several weeks (Durbin et al, 2017;McDougall et al, 2008;Thapar et al, 2017).…”

“…Secondly, a DS can provide high-intensity therapeutic input comparable to IPSs whilst maintaining the young person's home environment (Durbin et al, 2017), reducing the impact on a family's life cycle. This mitigates against the risk of institutionalisation and concerns around dislocation and contagion, which are often associated with inpatient admissions (Edwards et al, 2015).…”

“…This study provides the first analysed qualitative investigation into the value of adolescent DSs. Previous evidence is grounded in descriptive (McDougall et al, 2008;Thapar et al, 2017) and verbatim evidence (Durbin et al, 2017;Tovey et al, 2012). Thus, the sound methodological rigour used to carry out the research (Braun & Clarke, 2006), combined with the safeguards put in place to mitigate for bias (Creswell & Miller, 2000;Krefting, 1991;Lincoln & Guba, 1985) ensure that the study's findings are credible.…”

“…The 'gradual reduction in the intensity of care' and 'continuity of care' were also considered by clinicians as valuable aspects of the DS. Previous studies have identified that DSs facilitate a gradual step-down from IPSs (McDougall et al, 2008), bridging the gap in care and facilitating a gradual transition to community services (Durbin et al, 2017;Thapar et al, 2017). It has also been suggested that having continuity of care regarding the cohort of clinicians working across both services is of value (Rutter et al, 2011).…”