Cross-Sectional Comparison of Treatment Provided Under the Clinical, Integrated, and Partnership Staffing Models for Community-Based Residential Mental Health Rehabilitation

Abstract

In Queensland (Australia), community-based residential mental health rehabilitation services have three distinct staffing profiles. The traditional 'clinical' staffing model has nursing staff occupying most staff roles. The 'partnership' approach involves collaboration between the health service and a Non-Government Organisation. Under the 'integrated' staffing approach, Peer Support Workers reflect the majority staffing component. This study compares the treatment received by consumers (N = 172) under these staffing models using cross-sectional administrative data. Staffing models were generally comparable on demographic, diagnostic, and symptomatic/impairment measures. However, statistically significant differences were present on a range of treatment variables. Differences mainly occurred between the clinical and integrated approaches, with the integrated staffing model having lower rates of involuntary treatment, antipsychotic polypharmacy, depot use, and chlorpromazine dose equivalence levels. These findings indicate the need to carefully examine the impact of staffing configuration on rehabilitation processes to understand whether differences in approaches are likely to impact rehabilitation outcomes.