Table 5.

Binary logistic regression predicting RCS improvement on HoNOS total score (n = 179), reliable improvement on service use (n = 495) and change towards a less restrictive treatment status between the year pre-admission and the year post-discharge (n = 501)

	Variable	B	s.e. of B	Exp(β)	95% CI
HoNOS total scorea	Length of stay (days)	0.00**	0.01	1.03	1.01–1.05
	HoNOS total score pre- admission	0.11**	0.03	1.12	1.05–1.91
	LSP-16 total score pre-admission	−0.06*	0.03	0.94	0.90–0.99
	Total bed days pre-admission	−0.00*	0.00	0.99	0.99–1.00
	Constant	−1.79	0.66	0.17
Hospital use (total bed days)b	Length of stay (days)	0.00**	0.00	1.02	1.01–1.02
	Age (years)	0.02**	0.01	1.02	1.01–1.04
	Primary diagnosisc	−0.69*	0.27	0.50	0.30–0.85
	Total bed days pre-admission	0.01**	0.01	1.01	1.01–1.01
	Constant	−0.74	0.41	0.48
ED presentationsd	Sitee	1.24**	0.48	0.29	0.11–0.73
	Substance use pre-admissionf	0.84*	0.38	2.31	1.09–4.92
	HoNOS total score pre-admission	0.05*	0.02	1.06	1.01–1.11
	Constant	−3.03	0.52	0.05
Treatment statusg	Length of stay (days)	0.00**	0.01	1.05	1.04–1.07
	Age (years)	−0.08**	0.02	0.93	0.89–0.97
	Aggressive behaviour pre-admissionh	1.04*	0.44	2.82	1.18–6.76
	Total bed days pre-admission	−0.01*	0.00	0.99	0.99–1.00
	Constant	−0.94	0.80

HoNOS, Health of the Nation Outcome Scales; B, unstandardised regression coefficients; β, standardised regression coefficients; s.e., standard error; CI, confidence interval.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

^aThe dependent variable is 0 = no RCS improvement and 1 =  RCS improvement. The full model was significant (λ²(4) = 20.00, p < 0.001); the model accounted for 17.7% (Nagelkerke R²) of the total variance, correctly classifying 64.8% of consumers (44.8% as making RCS improvement and 78.6% as not improving).

^bThe dependent variable is 0 = no reliable improvement and 1 = reliable improvement. The full model was significant (λ²(4) = 20.00, p < 0.001); the model accounted for 19.6% (Nagelkerke R²) of the total variance, correctly classifying 65.8% of consumers (75.8% as making reliable improvement and 50.5% as not).

^cThe reference category is F20.x-F29.x.

^dThe dependent variable is 0 = no reliable improvement and 1 = reliable improvement. The full model was significant (λ²(3) = 20.48, p < 0.001), accounting for 12.1% (Nagelkerke R²) of the total variance; the model correctly classified 88.2% of consumers (2.6% as making reliable improvement and 100.0% as not).

^eThe reference category is a CCU site with 165 consumers (32.9%).

^fHoNOS item 3 rating of moderate of higher pre-admission.

^gThe dependent variable is 0 = same or more restrictive status and 1 = less restrictive status. The full model was significant (λ²(4) = 53.14, p < 0.001), accounting for 31.8% (Nagelkerke R²) of the total variance. The model correctly classified 87.9% of consumers; 97.6% in the same or more restrictive group and 19.4% in the less restrictive group.

^hHoNOS item 1 mild or greater pre-admission.