Delivering integrated diabetes and mental healthcare for people with type 1 diabetes disordered eating (T1DE): a mixed methods evaluation

TL;DR

Integrated diabetes and mental healthcare for people with type 1 diabetes and disordered eating improved patient outcomes and was positively received by staff and patients.

Contribution

This study evaluates the implementation and outcomes of integrated T1DE services combining diabetes and mental healthcare.

Findings

Integrated T1DE services showed modest delivery model variations but focused on joint diabetes and mental health care.

Staff reported positive experiences working in integrated teams despite initial challenges.

Patients experienced improved care and health outcomes, including reduced HbA1c levels.

Abstract

People with type 1 diabetes may be at increased risk of disordered eating, which may increase risk of elevated poor outcomes and high-risk complications. Type 1 diabetes disordered eating (T1DE) services were set-up to integrate diabetes and mental healthcare to better support people with T1DE and improve longer-term outcomes. A rapid evaluation was conducted to explore the implementation of T1DE services. Specifically, we aimed to: describe service delivery models; investigate staff experiences of impact and delivery of implementation; explore patient experiences of T1DE services; and to report health outcomes and associated costs.

Rapid evaluation using mixed methods (service mapping, staff and patient interviews, staff survey, analysis of clinical and economic data). Health outcome data was reported at baseline and 6 months.

This study explored the implementation of five new T1DE services and three existing services.

Staff working within T1DE services and patients who received care from T1DE services.

Assessment of our mixed methods study identified four key findings: (1) T1DE delivery models: The T1DE services displayed modest variation in models of delivery, but similarities were more evident, with a focus on direct delivery to patients involving joint meetings between diabetes and mental health staff. Nevertheless, some services also took on a ‘consultation’ role, providing advice and support to wider staff outside the service also managing these patients. Delayed implementation of the services slowed the formation of fully integrated teams and the ability of services to operate at scale. (2) Staff experience: Workforce issues were a crucial aspect of T1DE pilots. Managing this patient population is associated with high levels of anxiety for staff. Nevertheless, once formed, staff reported a very positive experience of working in integrated teams. (3) Patient experience: Although only a small sample of patients were interviewed, they reported a profoundly different experience to their previous care, which was now perceived as supportive and relationship focused. Although such improvements were aligned with the integrated care model underlying T1DE, it was less clear how such changes in patient experience would feature in decisions about commissioning. (4) Health outcomes and associated costs: There were 139 patients accepted onto the care pathway. Improvements were seen for all health outcomes. Compared with baseline measures, there was a mean 0.97% reduction in HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin) from 11.2% to 10.2% at 6 months. Improvements were also seen in other outcomes, including the diabetes eating problem scale and the diabetes distress scale. However, the number of patients on the care pathway with follow-up at 6 months was relatively small (n=29–47) and definitive statements about clinical or cost-effectiveness were not possible.

Overall, T1DE services were well received by both staff and patients. Due to a number of logistical challenges, the implementation of services was slower than anticipated, resulting in a limited number of patients on the care pathway. Securing local funding for existing services, once national pilot funding ended, was identified as a significant challenge. In order to ensure services are sustainable and commissioned at a local level, consideration may need to be given to alternative service delivery models.