Post-deinstitutionalisation, mental health supported accommodation services have been implemented widely. The available research evidence is heterogeneous in nature and resistant to synthesis attempts, leaving researchers and policy makers with no clear summary what works and for whom. In this context, we undertook a comprehensive systematic review of quantitative studies in order to synthesise the current evidence on mental health and psychosocial outcomes for individuals residing in mental health supported accommodation services. Using a combination of electronic database searches, hand searches, forward-backward snowballing and article recommendations from an expert panel, 115 papers were identified for review. Data extraction and quality assessments were conducted, and 33 articles were excluded due to low quality, leaving 82 papers in the final review. Variation in terminology and service characteristics made the comparison of service models unfeasible. As such, findings were presented according to the following sub-groups: ‘Homeless’, ‘Deinstitutionalisation’ and ‘General Severe Mental Illness (SMI)’. Results were mixed, reflecting the heterogeneity of the supported accommodation literature, in terms of research quality, experimental design, population, service types and outcomes assessed. There is some evidence that supported accommodation is effective across a range of psychosocial outcomes. The most robust evidence supports the effectiveness of the permanent supported accommodation model for homeless SMI in generating improvements in housing retention and stability, and appropriate use of clinical services over time, and for other forms of supported accommodation for deinstitutionalised populations in reducing hospitalisation rates and improving appropriate service use. The evidence base for general SMI populations is less developed, and requires further research. A lack of high-quality experimental studies, definitional inconsistency and poor reporting continue to stymie our ability to identify effective supported accommodation models and practices. The authors recommend improved reporting standards and the prioritisation of experimental studies that compare outcomes across different service models.

Inconsistent terminology and variation in service models have made synthesis of the supported accommodation literature challenging. To overcome this, we developed a brief, categorical taxonomy that aimed to capture the defining features of different supported accommodation models: the simple taxonomy for supported accommodation (STAX-SA). Data from a previous review of existing classification systems were used to develop the taxonomy structure. After initial testing and amendments, the STAX-SA and an existing taxonomy were applied to 132 supported accommodation service descriptions drawn from two systematic reviews and their performance compared. To assess external validity, the STAX-SA was distributed to a sample of supported accommodation managers in England and they were asked to use it to classify their services. The final version of the STAX-SA comprised of five supported accommodation ‘types’, based on four domains; Staffing location; Level of support; Emphasis on move-on; and Physical setting. The STAX-SA accurately categorized 71.1% (n = 94) of service descriptions, outperforming the comparison tool, and was not affected by publication date or research design. The STAX-SA effectively discriminated between ‘real world’ service models in England and 53.2% (n = 17) of service managers indicated that the taxonomy was ‘Very effective’ or ‘Extremely effective’ in capturing key characteristics of their service. The STAX-SA is an effective tool for classifying supported accommodation models and represents a promising approach to synthesizing the extant effectiveness literature. The authors recommend the development of reporting guidelines for future supported accommodation publications to facilitate comparison between models.

Little research has been done into the effectiveness of mental health supported accommodation services. We did a national survey to investigate provision and costs of services and assess service user quality of life and outcomes across England. We randomly sampled three types of services from 14 nationally representative regions-residential care, supported housing, and floating outreach-and recruited up to ten service users per service. Service quality and costs and service users' quality of life, autonomy, and satisfaction with care were assessed in a standardised manner with validated tools and compared by multilevel modelling. 619 service users were recruited from 22 residential care, 35 supported housing, and 30 floating outreach services. Those in residential care and supported housing had more severe mental health problems than those in floating outreach. 348 (57%) were assessed as being at risk of severe self-neglect and 229 (37%) as being vulnerable to exploitation in the previous 2 years. Residential care was most expensive but provided for people with the greatest needs. The mean annual budget was £466 687 for residential care (range £276 000-777 920), compared with £365 452 for supported housing (£174 877-818 000), and £172 114 for floating outreach (£17 126-491 692). Quality of care was best in supported housing. People in supported housing and floating outreach were more socially included but experienced more crime than those in residential care. After adjustment for service quality and service user sociodemographic and clinical factors, quality of life was similar for service users in residential care and supported housing (mean difference -0·138, 95% CI -0·402 to 0·126, p=0·306) and lower for those in floating outreach than in residential care (-0·424, -0·734 to -0·114, p=0·007). However, autonomy was greater for those in supported housing than for those in residential care (0·145, 0·010 to 0·279, p=0.035). Satisfaction with care was similar across services. Supported housing might be cost-effective, but the benefits need to be weighed against the risks associated with increased autonomy. National Institute for Health Research.

Specialist supported accommodation services have become a key component of most community‐based mental healthcare systems. While mental health policies highlight the importance of service user involvement in service development and care planning, there are no comprehensive literature reviews synthesising services users’ perspectives on, or experiences of, supported accommodation services. This systematic review was undertaken to fill this gap. We searched electronic databases (January 2015, updated June 2017), conducted hand searches and used forward‐backward snowballing to identify 13,678 papers. We inspected the full‐text of 110 papers and included 50 of these in the final review. Data extraction and quality assessments were conducted. We used narrative synthesis to develop a conceptual model of service users’ experiences that included structural, process, relational and contextual factors, such as the characteristics of the service, relationships with staff and other service users, the intensity and nature of support, the physical environment, and social and community integration. The review highlights the complex interplay of individual, service‐level and community factors in shaping the lived experience of service users and their impact on personal identity and recovery. Our approach addressed some of the widely reported limitations of the quantitative research in this field, providing a conceptual model relevant to service user experiences across supported accommodation service types, population groups and countries.

No standardised tools for assessing the quality of specialist mental health supported accommodation services exist. To address this, we adapted the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative care-QuIRC-that was originally developed to assess the quality of longer term inpatient and community based mental health facilities. The QuIRC, which is completed by the service manager and gives ratings of seven domains of care, has good psychometric properties. Focus groups with staff of the three main types of supported accommodation in the UK (residential care, supported housing and floating outreach services) were carried out to identify potential amendments to the QuIRC. Additional advice was gained from consultation with three expert panels, two of which comprised service users with lived experience of mental health and supported accommodation services. The amended QuIRC (QuIRC-SA) was piloted with a manager of each of the three service types. Item response variance, inter-rater reliability and internal consistency were assessed in a random sample of 52 services. Factorial structure and discriminant validity were assessed in a larger random sample of 87 services. The QuIRC-SA comprised 143 items of which only 18 items showed a narrow range of response and five items had poor inter-rater reliability. The tool showed good discriminant validity, with supported housing services generally scoring higher than the other two types of supported accommodation on most domains. Exploratory factor analysis showed that the QuIRC-SA items loaded onto the domains to which they had been allocated. The QuIRC-SA is the first standardised tool for quality assessment of specialist mental health supported accommodation services. Its psychometric properties mean that it has potential for use in research as well as audit and quality improvement programmes. A web based application is being developed to make it more accessible which will produce a printable report for the service manager about the performance of their service, comparison data for similar services and suggestions on how to improve service quality.

Background: Containment (e.g. physical restraint and seclusion) is used frequently in mental health inpatient settings. Containment is associated with serious psychological and physical harms. De-escalation (psychosocial techniques to manage distress without containment) is recommended to manage aggression and other unsafe behaviours, for example self-harm. All National Health Service staff are trained in de-escalation but there is little to no evidence supporting training’s effectiveness. Objectives: Objectives were to: (1) qualitatively investigate de-escalation and identify barriers and facilitators to use across the range of adult acute and forensic mental health inpatient settings; (2) co-produce with relevant stakeholders an intervention to enhance de-escalation across these settings; (3) evaluate the intervention’s preliminary effect on rates of conflict (e.g. violence, self-harm) and containment (e.g. seclusion and physical restraint) and understand barriers and facilitators to intervention effects. Design: Intervention development informed by Experience-based Co-design and uncontrolled pre and post feasibility evaluation. Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews investigated contextual variation in use and effects of de-escalation. Synthesis of this evidence informed co-design of an intervention to enhance de-escalation. An uncontrolled feasibility trial of the intervention followed. Clinical outcome data were collected over 24 weeks including an 8-week pre-intervention phase, an 8-week embedding and an 8-week post-intervention phase. Setting: Ten inpatient wards (including acute, psychiatric intensive care, low, medium and high secure forensic) in two United Kingdom mental health trusts. Participants: In-patients, clinical staff, managers, carers/relatives and training staff in the target settings. Interventions: Enhancing de-escalation techniques in adult acute and forensic units: Development and evaluation of an evidence-based training intervention (EDITION) interventions included de-escalation training, two novel models of reflective practice, post-incident debriefing and feedback on clinical practice, collaborative prescribing and ward rounds, practice changes around admission, shift handovers and the social and physical environment, and sensory modulation and support planning to reduce patient distress. Main outcome measures: Outcomes measured related to feasibility (recruitment and retention, completion of outcome measures), training outcomes and clinical and safety outcomes. Conflict and containment rates were measured via the Patient–Staff Conflict Checklist. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Attitudes to Containment Measures Questionnaire, Attitudes to Personality Disorder Questionnaire, Violence Prevention Climate Scale, Capabilities, Opportunities, and Motivation Scale, Coercion Experience Scale and Perceived Expressed Emotion in Staff Scale. Results: Completion rates of the proposed primary outcome were very good at 68% overall (excluding remote data collection), which increased to 76% (excluding remote data collection) in the post-intervention period. Secondary outcomes had high completion rates for both staff and patient respondents. Regression analyses indicated that reductions in conflict and containment were both predicted by study phase (pre, embedding, post intervention). There were no adverse events or serious adverse events related to the intervention. Conclusions: Intervention and data-collection procedures were feasible, and there was a signal of an effect on the proposed primary outcome. Limitations: Uncontrolled design and self-selecting sample. Future work: Definitive trial determining intervention effects. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN12826685 (closed to recruitment). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/101/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 3. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Context: Conflict (a term used to describe a range of potentially unsafe events including violence, self-harm, rule-breaking, medication refusal, illicit drug and alcohol use and absconding) in mental health settings causes serious physical and psychological harm. Containment interventions which are intended to minimise harm from violence (and other conflict behaviours) such as restraint, seclusion and rapid tranquilisation can result in serious injuries to patients and, occasionally, death. Involvement in physical restraint is the most common cause of serious physical injury to National Health Service mental health staff in the United Kingdom. Violence to staff results in substantial costs to the health service in sickness and litigation payments. Containment interventions are also expensive (e.g. physical restraint costs mental health services £6.1 million and enhanced observations £88 million per annum). Despite these harms, recent findings indicate containment interventions such as seclusion and physical restraint continue to be used frequently in mental health settings. Clinical trials have demonstrated that interventions can reduce containment without increasing violence and other conflict behaviours (e.g. verbal aggression, self-harm). Substantial cost-savings result from reducing containment use. De-escalation, as an intervention to manage aggression and potential violence without restrictive practices, is a core intervention. ‘De-escalation’ is a collective term for a range of psychosocial techniques designed to reduce distress and anger without the need to use ‘containment’ interventions (measures to prevent harm through restricting a person’s ability to act independently, such as physical restraint and seclusion). Evidence indicates that de-escalation involves ensuring conditions for safe intervention and effective communication are established, clarifying and attempting to resolve the patient’s concern, conveyance of respect and empathy and regulating unhelpful emotions such as anxiety and anger. Despite featuring prominently in clinical guidelines and training policy domestically and internationally and being a component of mandatory National Health Service training, there is no evidence-based model on which to base training. A systematic review of de-escalation training effectiveness and acceptability conducted in 2015 concluded: (1) no model of training has demonstrated effectiveness in a sufficiently rigorous evaluation, (2) the theoretical underpinning of evaluated models was often unclear and (3) there has been inadequate investigation of the characteristics of training likely to enhance acceptability and uptake. Despite all National Health Service staff being trained in de-escalation there have been no high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of training. Feasibility studies are needed to establish whether it is possible to conduct a definitive trial that can determine the clinical, safety and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.