Predictive Risk Modelling for Integrated Care: a Structured Review

If patients at risk of admission or readmission to hospital or other forms of care could be identified and offered suitable early interventions then their lives and long-term health may be improved by reducing the chances of future admission or readmission to care, and hopefully, their cost of care reduced. Considerable work has been carried out in this subject area especially in the USA and the UK. This has led for instance to the development of tools such as PARR, PARR-30, and the Combined Predictive Model for prediction of emergency readmission or admission to acute care. Here we perform a structured review the academic and grey literature on predictive risk tools for social care utilisation, as well as admission and readmission to general hospitals and psychiatric hospitals. This is the first phase of a project in partnership with Docobo Ltd and funded by Innovate UK,in which we seek to develop novel predictive risk tools and dashboards to assist commissioners in Clinical Commissioning Groups with the triangulation of the intelligence available from routinely collected data to optimise integrated care and better understand the complex needs of individuals.

Speaking with different voices: the problems with English law and psychiatric injury

Private law courts in the UK have maintained the de minimis threshold as a condition precedent for a successful claim for the infliction of mental harm. This de minimis threshold necessitates the presence of a ‘recognised psychiatric illness’ as opposed to ‘mere emotion’. This standard has also been adopted by the criminal law courts when reading the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to include non-physical injury. In determining the cut-off point between psychiatric injury and mere emotion, the courts have adopted a generally passive acceptance of expert testimony and the guidelines used by mental health professionals to make diagnoses. Yet these guidelines were developed for use in a clinical setting, not a legal one. This article examines the difficulty inherent in utilising the ‘dimensional’ diagnostic criteria used by mental health professionals to answer ‘categorical’ legal questions. This is of particular concern following publication of the new diagnostic manual, DSM-V in 2013, which will further exacerbate concerns about compatibility. It is argued that a new set of diagnostic guidelines, tailored specifically for use in a legal context, is now a necessity.