The cost of treatment of psychiatric emergencies: a comparison of hospital and community services

Predictors of Satisfaction with Care in Patients Suffering from Schizophrenia Treated Under Community Mental Health Teams

The aim of this study was to assess satisfaction with care and to identify the predictors of this variable among sociodemographic, clinical and social data in a group of patients suffering from schizophrenia under treatment in community mental health teams. The study included 90 patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia under the care of community mental health teams. Positive and Negative SyndromeScale, Verona Service Satisfaction Scale, Disability Assessment Schedule, Social Network Index and a loneliness scale (UCLA Loneliness Scale)were used in the study. Prognostic factors for higher satisfaction with care in the multivariate model involved: level of disability (Beta = -0.46, p < 0.001), duration of treatment under a CMHT (Beta = 0.36, p < 0.001), age (Beta = -0.37,p < 0.001), and education (Beta = -0.30, p = 0.002). The model explained 43% of the variance in the dependent variable. 1.Satisfaction with care in a CMHT was high. 2. Higher patient satisfaction could be predicted based on a lower level of disability, longer duration of treatment under a CMHT, lower age and lower education.

Crisis-planning interventions for people with psychotic illness or bipolar disorder: systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Mental health services lack a strong evidence base on the most effective interventions to reduce compulsory admissions. However, some research suggests a positive impact of crisis-planning interventions in which patients are involved in planning for their future care during a mental health crisis.

AIMS

This review aimed to synthesise randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence on the effectiveness of crisis-planning interventions (for example advance statements and joint crisis plans) in reducing rates of compulsory hospital admissions for people with psychotic illness or bipolar disorder, compared with usual care (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084808).

METHOD

Six online databases were searched in October 2018. The primary outcome was compulsory psychiatric admissions and secondary outcomes included other psychiatric admissions, therapeutic alliance, perceived coercion and cost-effectiveness. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration tool.

RESULTS

The search identified 1428 studies and 5 RCTs were eligible. One study had high risk of bias because of incomplete primary outcome data. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a 25% reduction in compulsory admissions for those receiving crisis-planning interventions compared with usual care (risk ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.93, P = 0.008; from five studies). There was no statistical evidence that the intervention reduced the risk of voluntary or combined voluntary and compulsory psychiatric admissions. Few studies assessed other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that crisis-planning interventions substantially reduce the risk of compulsory admissions among individuals with psychotic illness or bipolar disorder. Despite common components, interventions varied in their content and intensity across the trials. The optimal models and implementation of these interventions require further investigation.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

E.M., S.L., S.J. and B.L.-E. received funding from the National Institute for Health Research during the conduct of the study.

Psychosocial Interventions to Reduce Compulsory Psychiatric Admissions: A Rapid Evidence Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Compulsory mental health hospital admissions are increasing in several European countries but are coercive and potentially distressing. It is important to identify which mental health service models and interventions are effective in reducing compulsory admissions.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid evidence synthesis to explore whether there is any evidence for an effect on compulsory admissions for 15 types of psychosocial intervention, identified by an expert group as potentially relevant to reducing compulsory admission. A search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting compulsory admission as a primary or secondary outcome or adverse event was carried out using clinical guidelines, recent systematic reviews, and database searches postdating these reviews.

FINDINGS

We found 949 RCTs reporting on the interventions of interest, of which 19 reported on compulsory admission. Our narrative synthesis found some evidence for the effectiveness of crisis planning and self-management, while evidence for early intervention services was mixed. We did not find evidence to support adherence therapy, care from crisis resolution teams and assertive community treatment, but numbers of relevant studies were very small. We found no trials which tested effects on compulsory admission of the nine other intervention types.

INTERPRETATION

Crisis planning and self-management interventions with a relapse prevention element are most promising for preventing compulsory admissions. Given our broad search strategy, the lack of evidence demonstrates that there is an urgent need for more research on interventions which may reduce compulsory admissions.

FUNDING

Independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme.

Psychiatric emergencies

Despite the frequency with which psychiatric emergencies are encountered in medical and other services, the literature, at least in the UK, is relatively sparse, with little systematic research on either service provision or areas of clinical interest. Services have often evolved in an ad hoc way and psychiatric emergencies are often seen by very junior trainees early in their psychiatric careers, with little relevant training. Although the vigilance of the Royal College of Psychiatrists on its approval visits has ensured that most trainees are given advice on the recognition and management of violence (at induction courses at the start of their training), it is not uncommon to find that wider areas of training in emergency psychiatry are neglected. It is still the case, for example, that some postgraduate programmes in psychiatry provide little or no formal training on emergency psychiatry.

Intensive case management for severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community-based package of care aiming to provide long-term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. Intensive Case Management evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (fewer than 20) and high-intensity input.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ICM as a means of caring for severely mentally ill people in the community in comparison with non-ICM (caseload greater than 20) and with standard community care. We did not distinguish between models of ICM. In addition, to assess whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation (mean number of days per month in hospital) is influenced by the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and by the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted (baseline level of hospital use).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last update search 10 April 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community care setting, where ICM is compared to non-ICM or standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses.We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect. We assessed overall quality for clinically important outcomes using the GRADE approach and investigated possible risk of bias within included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2016 update included two more studies (n = 196) and more publications with additional data for four already included studies. The updated review therefore includes 7524 participants from 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We found data relevant to two comparisons: ICM versus standard care, and ICM versus non-ICM. The majority of studies had a high risk of selective reporting. No studies provided data for relapse or important improvement in mental state.1. ICM versus standard careWhen ICM was compared with standard care for the outcome service use, ICM slightly reduced the number of days in hospital per month (n = 3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.34,low-quality evidence). Similarly, for the outcome global state, ICM reduced the number of people leaving the trial early (n = 1798, 13 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79, low-quality evidence). For the outcome adverse events, the evidence showed that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.51, low-quality evidence). In addition, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment due to very low-quality evidence (n = 1129, 4 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.0, very low-quality evidence).2. ICM versus non-ICMWhen ICM was compared with non-ICM for the outcome service use, there was moderate-quality evidence that ICM probably makes little or no difference in the average number of days in hospital per month (n = 2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21, moderate-quality evidence) or in the average number of admissions (n = 678, 1 RCT, MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.05, moderate-quality evidence) compared to non-ICM. Similarly, the results showed that ICM may reduce the number of participants leaving the intervention early (n = 1970, 7 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95,low-quality evidence) and that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1152, 3 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.84, low-quality evidence). Finally, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment as compared to non-ICM (n = 73, 1 RCT, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.74, very low-quality evidence).3. Fidelity to ACTWithin the meta-regression we found that i.) the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii.) the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but the 'baseline hospital use' result still significantly influences time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07, P = 0.0027).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low- to moderate-quality evidence, ICM is effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illness. Compared to standard care, ICM may reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. Intensive Case Management is at least valuable to people with severe mental illnesses in the subgroup of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about four days per month in past two years). Intensive Case Management models with high fidelity to the original team organisation of ACT model were more effective at reducing time in hospital.However, it is unclear what overall gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach.We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, however we currently know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care, and this should be undertaken.

A Review of Economic Evaluations of Community Mental Health Care

The authors review the methodology and findings of economic evaluations of 42 community mental health care programs reported in the English-language literature between 1979 and 2003. There were three substantial methodological problems in the literature: costs were often not completely specified, the quality of econometric analysis was often low, and most evaluations failed to integrate cost and health outcome information. Well-conducted research shows that care in the community dominates hospital in-patient care, achieving better outcomes at lower or equal cost. It is less clear what types of community programs are most cost-effective. Future research should focus on identifying which types of community care are most cost effective and at what level of intensity they are most effective.

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

A particularly difficult challenge for community treatment of people with serious mental illnesses is the delivery of an acceptable level of care during the acute phases of severe mental illness. Crisis-intervention models of care were developed as a possible solution.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of crisis-intervention models for anyone with serious mental illness experiencing an acute episode compared to the standard care they would normally receive. If possible, to compare the effects of mobile crisis teams visiting patients' homes with crisis units based in home-like residential houses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials. There is no language, time, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. This search was undertaken in 1998 and then updated 2003, 2006, 2010 and September 29, 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials of crisis-intervention models versus standard care for people with severe mental illnesses that met our inclusion criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The update search September 2014 found no further new studies for inclusion, the number of studies included in this review remains eight with a total of 1144 participants. Our main outcomes of interest are hospital use, global state, mental state, quality of life, participant satisfaction and family burden. With the exception of mental state, it was not possible to pool data for these outcomes.Crisis intervention may reduce repeat admissions to hospital (excluding index admissions) at six months (1 RCT, n = 369, RR 0.75 CI 0.50 to 1.13, high quality evidence), but does appear to reduce family burden (at six months: 1 RCT, n = 120, RR 0.34 CI 0.20 to 0.59, low quality evidence), improve mental state (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) three months: 2 RCTs, n = 248, MD -4.03 CI -8.18 to 0.12, low quality evidence), and improve global state (Global Assessment Scale (GAS) 20 months; 1 RCT, n = 142, MD 5.70, -0.26 to 11.66, moderate quality evidence). Participants in the crisis-intervention group were more satisfied with their care 20 months after crisis (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8): 1 RCT, n = 137, MD 5.40 CI 3.91 to 6.89, moderate quality evidence). However, quality of life scores at six months were similar between treatment groups (Manchester Short Assessment of quality of life (MANSA); 1 RCT, n = 226, MD -1.50 CI -5.15 to 2.15, low quality evidence). Favourable results for crisis intervention were also found for leaving the study early and family satisfaction. No differences in death rates were found. Some studies suggested crisis intervention to be more cost-effective than hospital care but all numerical data were either skewed or unusable. We identified no data on staff satisfaction, carer input, complications with medication or number of relapses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Care based on crisis-intervention principles, with or without an ongoing homecare package, appears to be a viable and acceptable way of treating people with serious mental illnesses. However only eight small studies with unclear blinding, reporting and attrition bias could be included and evidence for the main outcomes of interest is low to moderate quality. If this approach is to be widely implemented it would seem that more evaluative studies are still needed.

Effects of Home Visit Intervention on Re-hospitalization Rates in Psychiatric Patients

To examine the home visit intervention (HoVI) effects on the re-hospitalization rate and medical costs in patients with schizophrenia or other psychiatric disorders. The subjects who received more than 3 HoVIs were defined as the HoVI group, whereas the subjects who received equal to or less than 3 HoVIs were defined as the HoVI < 4 group; the subjects who had never received an HoVI were defined as the non-HoVI group. Differences in the re-hospitalization rates and National Health Insurance (NHI) costs among the three groups were examined. The re-hospitalization rate of the HoVI group was significantly lower than that of the non-HoVI group. The hospitalization days and the NHI costs of the HoVI group were also lower than those of the non-HoVI group. However, the HoVI < 4 group was not different than the non-HoVI group regarding the re-hospitalization rate or the hospitalization days. The re-hospitalization rate was significantly higher before compared with after the HoVIs. The NHI costs were significantly higher before compared with after the HoVIs. HoVIs (More than 3 HoVIs) produced a lower re-hospitalization rate, number of hospitalization days, and NHI costs in patients who received care through the Home Visit. Project to strengthen the Community Rehabilitation Program.

Training to recognise the early signs of recurrence in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia has a lifetime prevalence of less than one per cent. Studies have indicated that early symptoms that are idiosyncratic to the person with schizophrenia (early warning signs) often precede acute psychotic relapse. Early warning signs interventions propose that learning to detect and manage early warning signs of impending relapse might prevent or delay acute psychotic relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of early warning signs interventions plus treatment as usual involving and not involving a psychological therapy on time to relapse, hospitalisation, functioning, negative and positive symptomatology.

SEARCH METHODS

Search databases included the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (July 2007 and May 2012) which is based on regular searches of BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. References of all identified studies were reviewed for inclusion. We inspected the UK National Research Registe and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing early warning signs interventions plus treatment as usual to treatment as usual for people with schizophrenia or other non-affective psychosis

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed included studies for quality and extracted data. If more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up, the study was excluded. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), for continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences (MD) with standard errors estimated, and for time to event outcomes we calculated Cox proportional hazards ratios (HRs) and associated 95 % CI. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and assessed overall study quality using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs and two cluster-RCTs that randomised 3554 people satisfied criteria for inclusion. Only one study examined the effects of early warning signs interventions without additional psychological interventions, and many of the outcomes for this review were not reported or poorly-reported. Significantly fewer people relapsed with early warning signs interventions than with usual care (23% versus 43%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.79; 15 RCTs, 1502 participants; very low quality evidence). Time to relapse did not significantly differ between intervention groups (6 RCTs, 550 participants; very low quality evidence). Risk of re-hospitalisation was significantly lower with early warning signs interventions compared to usual care (19% versus 39%; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.66; 15 RCTS, 1457 participants; very low quality evidence). Time to re-hospitalisation did not significantly differ between intervention groups (6 RCTs; 1149 participants; very low quality evidence). Participants' satisfaction with care and economic costs were inconclusive because of a lack of evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that early warning signs interventions may have a positive effect on the proportions of people re-hospitalised and on rates of relapse, but not on time to recurrence. However, the overall quality of the evidence was very low, indicating that we do not know if early warning signs interventions will have similar effects outside trials and that it is very likely that further research will alter these estimates. Moreover, the early warning signs interventions were used along side other psychological interventions, and we do not know if they would be effective on their own. They may be cost-effective due to reduced hospitalisation and relapse rates, but before mental health services consider routinely providing psychological interventions involving the early recognition and prompt management of early warning signs to adults with schizophrenia, further research is required to provide evidence of high or moderate quality regarding the efficacy of early warning signs interventions added to usual care without additional psychological interventions, or to clarify the kinds of additional psychological interventions that might aid its efficacy. Future RCTs should be adequately-powered, and designed to minimise the risk of bias and be transparently reported. They should also systematically evaluate resource costs and resource use, alongside efficacy outcomes and other outcomes that are important to people with serious mental illness and their carers.

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

A particularly difficult challenge for community treatment of people with serious mental illnesses is the delivery of an acceptable level of care during the acute phases of severe mental illness. Crisis intervention models of care were developed as a possible solution.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of crisis intervention models for anyone with serious mental illness experiencing an acute episode, compared with 'standard care'.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the 1998, 2003 and 2006 searches with a search of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (2010) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials of crisis intervention models versus standard care for people with severe mental illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assumed that people who left early from a trial had no improvement.

MAIN RESULTS

Three new studies have been found since the last review in 2006 to add to the five studies already included in this review. None of the previously included studies investigated crisis intervention alone; all used a form of home care for acutely ill people, which included elements of crisis intervention. However, one of the new studies focuses purely on crisis intervention as provided by Crisis Resolution Home Teams within the UK; the two other new studies investigated crisis houses i.e. residential alternatives to hospitalisation providing home-like environments.Crisis intervention appears to reduce repeat admissions to hospital after the initial 'index' crises investigated in the included studies, this was particularly so for mobile crisis teams supporting patients in their own homes.Crisis intervention reduces the number of people leaving the study early, reduces family burden, is a more satisfactory form of care for both patients and families and at three months after crisis, mental state is superior to standard care. We found no differences in death outcomes. Some studies found crisis interventions to be more cost effective than hospital care but all numerical data were either skewed or unusable. No data on staff satisfaction, carer input, complications with medication or number of relapses were available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Care based on crisis intervention principles, with or without an ongoing home care package, appears to be a viable and acceptable way of treating people with serious mental illnesses. If this approach is to be widely implemented it would seem that more evaluative studies are still needed.

Antipsychotic medication for early episode schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Long-term treatment with antipsychotic medications in early episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders is common, but both short and long-term effects on the illness are unclear. There have been numerous suggestions that people with early episodes of schizophrenia appear to respond differently than those with multiple prior episodes. The number of episodes may moderate response to drug treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antipsychotic medication treatment on people with early episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register (July 2007) as well as references of included studies. We contacted authors of studies for further data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies with a majority of first and second episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders comparing initial antipsychotic medication treatment with placebo, milieu, or psychosocial treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we critically appraised records from 681studies, of which five studies met inclusion criteria. John Rathbone from the Schizophrenia Group supported us with the data extraction. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) where possible. For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD). We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies with a combined N = 998 met inclusion criteria. Four studies (N = 724) provided leaving the study early data and results suggested that individuals treated with a typical antipsychotic medication are less likely to leave the study early than those treated with placebo (Chlorpromazine: 3 RCTs N = 353, RR 0.4 CI 0.3 to 0.5, NNT 3.2, Fluphenaxine: 1 RCT N = 240, RR 0.5 CI 0.3 to 0.8, NNT 5; Thioridazine: 1 RCT N = 236, RR 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.7, NNT 4.3, Trifulperazine: 1 RCT N = 94, RR 0.96 CI 0.3 to 3.6). Two studies (Cole 1964; May 1976) contributed data to assessment of side effects and present a general pattern of more frequent side effects among individuals treated with typical antipsychotic medications compared to placebo. Rappaport 1978 suggested a higher rehospitalisation rate for those receiving chlorpromazine compared to placebo (N = 80, RR 2.29 CI 1.3 to 4.0, NNH 2.9). However, a higher attrition in the placebo group is likely to have introduced a survivor bias into this comparison, as this difference becomes non-significant in a sensitivity analysis on intent-to-treat participants (N = 127, RR 1.69 CI 0.9 to 3.0). One study (May 1976) contributes data to a comparison of trifluoperazine to psychotherapy on long-term health in favour of the trifluoperazine group (N = 92, MD 5.8 CI 1.6 to 0.0); however, data from this study are also likely to contain biases due to selection and attrition. One study (Mosher 1995) contributes data to a comparison of typical antipsychotic medication to psychosocial treatment on six-week outcome measures of global psychopathology (N = 89, MD 0.01 CI -0.6 to 0.6) and global improvement (N = 89, MD -0.03 CI -0.5 to 0.4), indicating no between-group differences. On the whole, there is very little useable data in the few studies meeting inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With only a few studies meeting inclusion criteria, and with limited useable data in these studies, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. The preliminary pattern of evidence suggests that people with early episode schizophrenia treated with typical antipsychotic medications are less likely to leave the study early, but more likely to experience medication-related side effects. Data are too sparse to assess the effects of antipsychotic medication on outcomes in early episode schizophrenia.

Developing mental health services in response to research evidence

Over the last thirty to forty years, psychiatric care in England has relocated from hospital-based settings to community mental health teams (CMHTs) and supported accommodation. Since the 1980s, two forms of intensive home based treatment have evolved in addition to CMHTS, assertive community treatment (ACT) and crisis resolution teams (CRTs). On the basis of evidence for their efficacy in the US and other countries, they have been implemented across England through the Government's National Service Framework for Mental Health. This paper describes this evidence and the first UK studies that were carried out to evaluate these newly implemented services.Methods– Descriptions of the evaluations of ACT and CRTs in the inner London boroughs of Camden and Islington.Results– The implementation of CRTs in North London were associated with reduced use of inpatient services, but the ACT teams were not. Both types of team were associated with greater patient satisfaction with services and the ACTs were better able to engage patients than CMHTs.Conclusions– The authors comment on the implications of the findings for service planners in terms of the difficulties in implementing innovative approaches based on the best available evidence when it originates outside the local context.

Declaration of Interest:These studies were funded by Camden and Islington Health Authority, the King's Fund and the Department of Health.

Intensive case management for severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community based package of care, aiming to provide long term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. ICM evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (less than 20) and high intensity input.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of Intensive Case Management (caseload <20) in comparison with non-Intensive Case Management (caseload > 20) and with standard community care in people with severe mental illness. To evaluate whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation depends on its fidelity to the ACT model and on the setting.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the current update of this review we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2009), which is compiled by systematic searches of major databases, hand searches and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community-care setting, where Intensive Case Management, non-Intensive Case Management or standard care were compared. Outcomes such as service use, adverse effects, global state, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs were sought.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes we calculated relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI). We employed a random-effects model for analyses.We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 trials (7328 participants) in this review. The trials provided data for two comparisons: 1. ICM versus standard care, 2. ICM versus non-ICM.1. ICM versus standard care Twenty-four trials provided data on length of hospitalisation, and results favoured Intensive Case Management (n=3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86 CI -1.37 to -0.34). There was a high level of heterogeneity, but this significance still remained when the outlier studies were excluded from the analysis (n=3143, 20 RCTs, MD -0.62 CI -1.00 to -0.23). Nine studies found participants in the ICM group were less likely to be lost to psychiatric services (n=1633, 9 RCTs, RR 0.43 CI 0.30 to 0.61, I²=49%, p=0.05).One global state scale did show an Improvement in global state for those receiving ICM, the GAF scale (n=818, 5 RCTs, MD 3.41 CI 1.66 to 5.16). Results for mental state as measured through various rating scales, however, were equivocal, with no compelling evidence that ICM was really any better than standard care in improving mental state. No differences in mortality between ICM and standard care groups occurred, either due to 'all causes' (n=1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.84 CI 0.48 to 1.47) or to 'suicide' (n=1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68 CI 0.31 to 1.51).Social functioning results varied, no differences were found in terms of contact with the legal system and with employment status, whereas significant improvement in accommodation status was found, as was the incidence of not living independently, which was lower in the ICM group (n=1185, 4 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.49 to 0.88).Quality of life data found no significant difference between groups, but data were weak. CSQ scores showed a greater participant satisfaction in the ICM group (n=423, 2 RCTs, MD 3.23 CI 2.31 to 4.14).2. ICM versus non-ICM The included studies failed to show a significant advantage of ICM in reducing the average length of hospitalisation (n=2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08 CI -0.37 to 0.21). They did find ICM to be more advantageous than non-ICM in reducing rate of lost to follow-up (n=2195, 9 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.52 to 0.99), although data showed a substantial level of heterogeneity (I²=59%, p=0.01). Overall, no significant differences were found in the effects of ICM compared to non-ICM for broad outcomes such as service use, mortality, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs.3. Fidelity to ACT Within the meta-regression we found that i. the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36 CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii. the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20 CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but 'baseline hospital use' result is still significantly influencing time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18 CI -0.29 to -0.07, p=0.0027).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ICM was found effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illnesses. Compared to standard care ICM was shown to reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. ICM is of value at least to people with severe mental illnesses who are in the sub-group of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about 4 days/month in past 2 years) and the intervention should be performed close to the original model.It is not clear, however, what gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach.We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, but currently we know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care and this should be undertaken.

[Schizophrenic patients' length of stay: mental health care implication and medicoeconomic consequences]

A striking reduction in hospital beds can be seen as the defining characteristic of mental health services in many western countries during the last 30 years. The politic of shortening hospital stays for persons with psychosis has been questioned by a number of authors. Studies of patients returning to the community compared to those remaining in institutions show not only better quality of life and larger friendship networks, but also reductions in dependence on pharmacotherapies and lower mortality rates. An interesting comparison between three contrasting mental care systems in Holland, Italy and Australia concluded not surprisingly that hospital stays are shortest where community care is more developed, although long term hospitalization will always be required for a small number of very severe patients. The general conclusion was that shorter stays work best if and only if there is high quality community care which comes into play immediately on discharge. The central issue appears to be that the beneficial effects of short stays are modulated by conditions of discharge. That is, in the absence of a planned discharge policy, patients appear to be better off staying longer, in order that a structured rehabilitation plan may be put in place. The process of deinstitutionalisation has been driven by a variety of forces. One is to reduce costs, since hospital inpatient costs are very high. Generally, between one- and two-thirds of the total health care cost of schizophrenia is for hospitalization, even in countries that have already substantially reduced their inpatient provision. Recent years have seen a trend toward mental health services provided from community-based settings for defined catchment areas. The development of these services has a heavy cost, with the opening of replacement accommodation and other community facilities and large teams. While few patients or clinicians would contest today that a return to normal community life is preferable to institutionalization, the adoption of shorter hospital stays was not an evidence-based policy and no adequate evaluation study was ever put in place to predict the social, clinical and economic consequences of this widespread practice.

A qualitative study of a psychiatric emergency

BACKGROUND

The psychiatric emergency service (PES) is a major hub in the mental health care delivery system. The aim of this study was to more precisely define what psychiatrists consider to be a psychiatric emergency and to examine the underlying basis of this assessment.

METHODS

Over twenty-two thousand PES visits were assessed prospectively for pertinence and urgency by psychiatrists in four functionally and structurally different services in the province of Quebec, Canada. This study took place between July 15 1996 and August 31, 2004.

RESULTS

Overall, 57% of visits were judged pertinent and urgent (P/U), 30% pertinent but not urgent (P/NU) and 13% neither pertinent nor urgent (NP/NU). Between 50 and 60% of P/U tagged visits were diagnosed with an affective or a psychotic disorder, often with a suicidal content. They also more frequently resulted in a short-term observation in the PES or a hospitalization. Variables suggesting the presence of a behaviorally disturbed state (aggressive behaviors, involuntary or police referrals) were equally likely to be found in P/U or NP/NU visits. Legal confinement following the consultation was almost exclusively seen in visits judged P/U. The percent of visits tagged P/U at the four individual sites varied substantially above and below the 57% value for the combined data. Interestingly, no major inter-site differences in diagnostic profiles for the three pertinence and urgency anchor points were found that might account for this variability. Finally, visits from high frequency users were less likely to be judged P/U than visits from patients attending less frequently.

CONCLUSION

Primary consideration for a P/U tag was a visit characterized by a behaviorally disturbed state and/or, suicidal ideation (or attempts) within the context of either an underlying psychotic or affective disorder, especially if poor judgment was an issue. Some specific diagnoses appeared to qualify the above core clinical considerations, increasing or decreasing the probability of a P/U tag. Finally, non-clinical site-specific factors related to the individual services themselves, such as the number of readily available specialized resources, also appeared to qualify this assessment. These data may prove useful for the future development of this service.

Healthcare in schizophrenia: effectiveness and progress of a redesigned care network

Background

The aim of this study was designed to investigate the care-effectiveness of different healthcare models for schizophrenic patients and the impact of it on caregivers.

Methods

Sample cases were randomly selected from southern Taiwan, 257 patients in redesigned care network, including a general hospital, a chronic ward, 10 outpatient clinics, and multialternative community programs, was compared to 247 patients in other traditional healthcare provider that were utilized as the control group. The quality of life (QOL) questionnaire and the Chinese health questionnaire (CHQ) were used.

Results

The controls had longer duration of illness (p = 0.001) and were older (p = 0.004). The average resource utilization in the study group (US$ 2737/year, per case) was higher than the control group (US$ 2041) (t = 7.91, p < 0.001). For the study group, the average length of stay was shorter, but the admission rate was higher. The QOL of the patients in the study group was better than that of the controls (p = 0.01). The family burden of the study group was lower (p = 0.035) and the score of general health questionnaire higher (p = 0.019).

Conclusion

We found that patients in the redesigned care network had a better QOL, lower family burden, decreased days of hospital stay, higher medical resource utilization and less frequent admission to a hospital, and the caregivers had better mental health. Although the costs were higher, the continued care network was more helpful in providing comprehensive mental illness services.

Community mental health teams (CMHTs) for people with severe mental illnesses and disordered personality

BACKGROUND

Closure of asylums and institutions for the mentally ill, coupled with government policies focusing on reducing the number of hospital beds for people with severe mental illness in favour of providing care in a variety of non-hospital settings, underpins the rationale behind care in the community. A major thrust towards community care has been the development of community mental health teams (CMHT).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of community mental health team (CMHT) treatment for anyone with serious mental illness compared with standard non-team management.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2006). We manually searched the Journal of Personality Disorders, and contacted colleagues at ENMESH, ISSPD and in forensic psychiatry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials of CMHT management versus non-team standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a fixed effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

CMHT management did not reveal any statistically significant difference in death by suicide and in suspicious circumstances (n=587, 3 RCTs, RR 0.49 CI 0.1 to 2.2) although overall, fewer deaths occurred in the CMHT group. We found no significant differences in the number of people leaving the studies early (n=253, 2 RCTs, RR 1.10 CI 0.7 to 1.8). Significantly fewer people in the CMHT group were not satisfied with services compared with those receiving standard care (n=87, RR 0.37 CI 0.2 to 0.8, NNT 4 CI 3 to 11). Also, hospital admission rates were significantly lower in the CMHT group (n=587, 3 RCTs, RR 0.81 CI 0.7 to 1.0, NNT 17 CI 10 to 104) compared with standard care. Admittance to accident and emergency services, contact with primary care, and contact with social services did not reveal any statistical difference between comparison groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Community mental health team management is not inferior to non-team standard care in any important respects and is superior in promoting greater acceptance of treatment. It may also be superior in reducing hospital admission and avoiding death by suicide. The evidence for CMHT based care is insubstantial considering the massive impact the drive toward community care has on patients, carers, clinicians and the community at large.

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

A particularly difficult challenge for community treatment of people with serious mental illnesses is the delivery of an acceptable level of care during the acute phases of severe mental illness. Crisis intervention models of care were developed as a possible solution.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives are to review the effects of a crisis intervention model for anyone with serious mental illness experiencing an acute episode, compared with 'standard care'.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated the 1998 and 2003 searches with a search of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (January 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials of crisis intervention models versus standard care for people with severe mental illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we selected and critically appraised studies, extracted data and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Where possible and appropriate we calculated relative risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), with the number needed to treat (NNT). We calculated Weighted Mean Differences (WMD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Several home-care studies have been carried out recently but none of these met the inclusion criteria for this review. For the 2006 update we excluded four more studies (total excluded 25). Two other recent studies await assessment; we found no new studies to add to the five studies already included in this review. None of these included studies purely investigated crisis intervention; all used a form of home care for acutely ill people, which included elements of crisis intervention. Forty five percent of the crisis/home care group were unable to avoid hospital admission during their treatment period. Home care, however, may help avoid repeat admissions (n=465, 3 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.54 to 0.92, NNT 11 CI 6 to 97), but these data are heterogeneous (I-squared 86%). Crisis/home care reduces the number of people leaving the study early (n=594, 4 RCTs, RR lost at 12 months 0.74 CI 0.56 to 0.98, NNT 13 CI 7 to 130), reduces family burden (n=120, 1 RCT, RR 0.34 CI 0.20 to 0.59, NNT 3 CI 2 to 4), and is a more satisfactory form of care for both patients and families. We found no differences in death or mental state outcomes. All studies found home care to be more cost effective than hospital care but all numerical data were either skewed or unusable. No data on staff satisfaction, carer input, compliance with medication or number of relapses were available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Home care crisis treatment, coupled with an ongoing home care package, is a viable and acceptable way of treating people with serious mental illnesses. If this approach is to be widely implemented it would seem that more evaluative studies are still needed.

The bed requirement inventory: a simple measure to estimate the need for a psychiatric bed

OBJECTIVE

To develop an assessment of bed need that was as little affected by personal bias as possible.

METHOD

The Bed Requirement Inventory (BRI) is an eight-point scale designed to identify the appropriate use of an acute psychiatric bed. This is completed by a member of the ward staff, usually a nurse, and takes 5 minutes to fill in. The reliability, validity and feasibility of using the scale in normal practice were tested in a one-year study, and variations in inappropriate bed use described.

RESULTS

The inter-rater reliability of the scale was good (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.63) and a comparison of the need for a psychiatric bed (comparing the BRI score with the judgement of an independent multidisciplinary group of professionals) also showed good agreement (k = 0.69), suggesting reasonable validity (although when the assessment was made by the named nurse agreement was less good). Results from a year-long survey in two West London hospitals showed that 17% of admissions were inappropriate and 32% had delayed discharge, black Caribbean patients had a significantly higher proportion (25%) of inappropriate admission than others (11%) and those referred from housing charities and hostels had a higher proportion (50%) of inappropriate bed use at some time than other groups (33%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Bed Requirement Inventory is a quick and reliable method of determining the appropriate use of a psychiatric bed and could be of use in estimating local bed needs. Delayed discharge remains a serious reason for inappropriate bed use in London.

Attempted suicide: factors leading to hospitalization

OBJECTIVE

This study analyzes how sociodemographic and clinical characteristics influence the treatment decision for patients referred to a university hospital emergency room (ER) owing to attempted suicide.

METHOD

Using a cross-sectional design, we monitored all patients admitted to a university hospital ER after attempting suicide, over a 3-year period (n = 404). Treatment decisions were categorized into 3 groups: inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment, and no further treatment.

RESULTS

Older patients were more likely to be hospitalized, while women and patients with regular occupational activity were more likely to receive outpatient treatment. In logistic regression analysis, attempted suicide using aggressive methods, history of psychiatric inpatient treatment, and psychotic disorders were associated with inpatient treatment. Adjustment and neurotic disorders were related to outpatient treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to hospitalize can be satisfactorily predicted by means of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, while the number of patients assigned to outpatient treatment is underestimated. A triage that relies only on sociodemographic and clinical data as well as risk factors could result in too frequent admissions of patients after attempted suicide.

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

BACKGROUND

A particularly difficult challenge for community treatment of people with serious mental illnesses is the delivery of an acceptable level of care during the acute phases of severe mental illness. Crisis intervention models of care were developed as a possible solution.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of a crisis intervention model for anyone with serious mental illness experiencing an acute episode, compared to 'standard care'.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches of 1998 were updated with a search of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (July 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of crisis intervention models versus standard care for people with severe mental illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, reviewers selected and critically appraised studies, extracted data and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Where possible and appropriate we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), with the number needed to treat (NNT). For continuous data Weighted Mean Differences (WMD) were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

This 2003 update includes no new studies. Five studies, none purely investigating crisis intervention, are included and 21 excluded. All included trials used a form of home care for acutely ill people, which included elements of crisis intervention. 45% of the crisis/home care group were unable to avoid hospital admission during their treatment period. Home care, however, may help avoid repeat admissions (n = 465, 3 randomised controlled trials, RR 0.72 CI 0.54 to 0.92, NNT 11 CI 6 to 97), but these data are heterogeneous (I-squared 86%). Crisis/home care reduces the number of people leaving the study early (n = 594, 4 randomised controlled trials, RR lost at 12 months 0.74 CI 0.56 to 0.98, NNT 13 CI 7 to 130), reduces family burden (n = 120, 1 randomised controlled trial, RR 0.34 CI 0.20 to 0.59, NNT 3 CI 2 to 4), and is a more satisfactory form of care for both patients and families. We found no differences in death or mental state outcomes. All studies found home care to be more cost effective than hospital care but all data were either skewed or unusable. No data on staff satisfaction, carer input, compliance with medication and number of relapses were available.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Home care crisis treatment, coupled with an ongoing home care package, is a viable and acceptable way of treating people with serious mental illnesses. If this approach is to be widely implemented it would seem that more evaluative studies are needed.

Comparison of Quality of Life for People with Schizophrenia and Mental Health of Caregivers Between Community-Based and Hospital-based Services

This study is a comparison of the quality of life and family stress levels in community-based and hospital-based services for people with schizophrenia. Fiscal considerations of the health insurance industry in Taiwan require the evaluation of a community support program versus the traditional, hospital-centered program for reform of mental health policy concerning schizophrenia. The study involved 52 schizophrenic patients, 27 in a community-based program and 25 in a hospital-based treatment model, and was conducted from January to December 2001 in the psychiatric department of a general teaching hospital in southern Taiwan. Outcomes were determined using the World Health Organization quality of life questionnaire (WHOQoL-BREF, Taiwan version), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), General Health Questionnaire (Chinese version), rate of loss to follow-up, job conditions, and social function. Comparisons of quality of life and caregiver mental health between the two groups were accomplished using descriptive analysis, independent sample t test, and the generalized estimating equation-I. No significant differences between the two groups were found in quality of life or family mental stress according to the General Health Questionnaire after controlling for sex, age, disease duration, full IQ, and total BPRS score. Long disease duration predicted a hospital setting, while a high IQ was predictive of a community setting. We found no decrease in quality of life for schizophrenic patients in a hospital-based program and no increase in family mental stress among the community-based group. To improve patients' quality of life and the mental health of caregivers in both services, it is important to ameliorate severe symptoms associated with schizophrenia.

Community mental health team management in severe mental illness: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Community mental health teams are now generally recommended for the management of severe mental illness but a comparative evaluation of their effectiveness is lacking.

AIMS

To assess the benefits of community mental health team management in severe mental illness.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted of community mental health team management compared with other standard approaches.

RESULTS

Community mental health team management is associated with fewer deaths by suicide and in suspicious circumstances (odds ratio=0.32, 95% Cl 0.09-1.12), less dissatisfaction with care (odds ratio=0.34, 95% Cl 0.2-0.59) and fewer drop-outs (odds ratio=0.61, 95% Cl 0.45-0.83). Duration of in-patient psychiatric treatment is shorter with community team management and costs of care are less, but there are no gains in clinical symptomatology or social functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Community mental health team management is superior to standard care in promoting greater acceptance of treatment, and may also reduce hospital admission and avoid deaths by suicide. This model of care is effective and deserves encouragement.

A randomized controlled trial of community-oriented and hospital-oriented care for discharged psychiatric patients: influence of personality disorder on police contacts

An important forensic psychiatric measure, contacts with police, was compared in a randomized, controlled trial of 155 patients with severe mental illness with a previous admission within the past two years. The patients, who also had their personality status addressed formally before randomization, were allocated to community multidisciplinary teams or to hospital-based care programs after discharge from in-patient care and were followed up for one year. A total of 138 patients (89%) had at least one post-baseline assessment and of these patients, 16 (12%) had at least one police contact in the year of the study, most of which were emergency assessments. The data showed significantly greater numbers of police contacts in patients with increasing severity of personality disturbance. Patients with such disturbance were six times more likely to have police contacts than those with no personality disorder. There were significantly more contacts in patients with borderline and antisocial (dissocial) personality disorder allocated to community-oriented care compared with hospital-oriented care. These findings have important implications for risk assessment in severe mental illness.

Patient-disease characteristics and coping strategies predict hospitalization in emergency psychiatry

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to analyze how far patient-disease characteristics (sociodemographic variables, previous psychiatric treatment, way of referral, the patient's current diagnosis), and the patient's coping strategies are connected with the consecutive disposition for inpatient or outpatient treatment.

METHODS

Data from a one-year intake of the psychiatric emergency service at a University Hospital (N = 1439) were monitored and analyzed with regard to the decision on treatment. Four hundred eighty-one patients were hospitalized and 530 were assigned to outpatient treatment. Two subsamples of twenty-eight patients from each group filled out the Bernese Coping Modes questionnaire before the decision with regard to the treatment disposition was taken.

RESULTS

The patient's psychiatric history, the way of referral as well as the current axis I diagnosis made a significant contribution to the treatment decision. Overall, patient-disease characteristics allowed for correct classification of 69.3 percent of cases. However, coping was a comparable predictor of hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

It is argued that the search for patient-disease characteristics in the psychiatric emergency room should be complemented by a more extensive monitoring of the patients' way of coping with their current crisis.

Economic impacts of assertive community treatment: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Assertive community treatment (ACT) is an extensively studied and widely imitated community support treatment model for severely mentally ill individuals. Several previous reviews have documented its favourable effects on clients and their families. This is the first review to focus on economic outcomes.

METHODS

Nineteen randomized studies and 15 nonrandomized studies describing ACT programs were identified based on 2 criteria: 1) provision of services primarily in the community and 2) shared caseloads. Percentage reduction in hospital days was calculated for the 34 study sites where reported data allowed it. Multiple-regression methods were used to relate reduction in hospital days to program fidelity and other contextual factors. The impacts of ACT on emergency-room use, use of outpatient services, housing, costs, and other economic outcomes were also examined.

RESULTS

Higher-fidelity programs appear to reduce hospital days by about 23 percentage points more than lower-fidelity programs (95% CI = -41.2, -5.2). The estimated regression coefficients imply that a high-fidelity program reduces hospitalizations by about 58% over 1 year if the alternative involves some type of case management and by 78% if it does not. ACT appears to increase the proportion of clients who live in independent housing situations, but the effect on use of supervised housing, and therefore on housing costs, is ambiguous. The effects on use of most other resources are inconsistent across studies. Overall, ACT appears to result in somewhat lower costs, whatever the perspective of analysis adopted.

CONCLUSIONS

The most reliable cost offset to ACT treatment costs appears to be reduced hospital use. Using Quebec costs, an ACT program must enroll people with prior hospital use of about 50 days yearly, on average, to break even. As care systems evolve to reduce their reliance on hospitalization as a care modality with or without ACT, this threshold will become increasingly difficult to achieve. The primary justification for implementing ACT services will then become their clinical benefits.

Characteristics of psychiatric emergencies and the choice of intervention strategies

The aim of this study was to describe the sociodemographic, contextual and clinical characteristics of a consecutive sample of 3611 psychiatric emergency visits to a Swiss university general hospital, and to investigate their associations with different intervention strategies. All consultations were documented by a questionnaire covering sociodemographic and diagnostic data as well as information about the consultation and the disposition decision. In a total of 1093 cases (30.3%) no further emergency intervention was required, in 1287 cases (35.6%) patients were offered out-patient crisis intervention, and in 1231 cases (34.1%) patients were hospitalized. Social integration and the presence of an easily recognizable precipitating stressor were associated with referral to out-patient crisis intervention. In logistic regression analyses, referral by the police or by health professionals (in contrast to self-referral or referral by relatives), current diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, and previous hospitalizations were the most powerful predictors of hospitalization. The presence of a precipitating stressor related to the patient's social network decreased the likelihood of hospitalization. The findings indicate a need for facilities offering brief admission, allowing for extended emergency assessments.

Costs of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a common and burdensome illness, with implications not only for the health service but for a host of other care agencies--public and private--as well as for patients, families and the wider society.

METHOD

The paper reviews available UK evidence on the cost of schizophrenia (broadly defined) and on the cost-effectiveness of treatment options and alternative care arrangements. New evidence potentially alters our view of the costs of this illness.

RESULTS

Aggregating the identifiable direct and indirect costs of schizophrenia for England suggests an annual cost of 2.6 billion pounds, but even this sum omits some indirect impacts which cannot currently be costed. Just over half the identified total is accounted for by the direct costs falling to the NHS, local authorities, charities and the criminal justice system. In helping to tackle this cost burden, there is now a body of evidence on cost-effective community care arrangements, antipsychotic drugs and psychological interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the costs of schizophrenia are considerable, there are treatments and care arrangements which can reduce this aggregate burden while maintaining or improving effectiveness.

Importance of local differences in comparing hospital and community psychiatric services

Most of the studies that are frequently cited as examples of effective comprehensive community care, (i.e. they reduce the demand for hospital beds without any loss in treatment efficacy (Stein & Test, 1980; Hoult & Reynolds, 1984; Muijen et al., 1992) were carried out before the introduction of the Care Programme Approach (CPA) in 1991 (Department of Health, 1990) which at present only applies to England. As the CPA derives from these earlier studies the discrepancies between hospital and community based aftercare might be expected to become less, as now all services in England are expected to include a significant community element. However, there can still be important differences between those services focusing on community care as the main priority and those in which the hospital system is paramount.

The psychiatric services in the area covered by North West London Mental Health Trust (NWL Trust) represented a natural test of these two approaches as they had parallel hospital and community based teams covering the same catchment areas respectively, North Paddington, in Westminster and Brent, in outer London.

At this point it is useful to provide more detailed description of the two geographical areas at the time of the study and the community and hospital based teams that were involved.

Costing day hospital and in patient care for acute psychiatric illness

This study was primarily designed as a cost effectiveness analysis, comparing the costs and outcomes of day hospital and in-patient care for acute psychiatric illness. There are a growing number of this type of study in mental health (Knappet al., 1994; McCroneet al., 1994; Wiersmaet al., 1995; Mersonet al., 1996). The costing methodology used in such studies is becoming more consistent, but economic evaluation in mental health care is still developing and there remain several unanswered questions which will be considered in this paper. The wide variation in the costs of care of people with mental health problems is a critical factor in these studies (Grayet al., 1996).

The cost effectiveness study is based on a previous randomised controlled trial conducted at Manchester Royal Infirmary which showed the feasibility and effectiveness of day patient treatment for acutely ill patients (Creedet al., 1990). In the current study 187 patients were randomly allocated, 94 to day hospital care and 93 to in-patient care. The method and results of the main cost effectiveness analysis are described in detail elsewhere (Creedet al., 1996a). This paper concentrates on reviewing the methods used to collect cost data, and further analysis of the data exploring variations in costs.

General practitioners' views of an open referral system to a community mental health service

The satisfaction of general practitioners with a community mental health service operating an open referral system was compared to that with two services both operating a closed referral system covering the same inner-city district. The open referral system allows any agency (including patients) to contact the service by letter or by telephone, and priority is given to patients with serious mental illness. General practitioners' satisfaction with all aspects of the open referral system was greater than that with either of the closed referral systems. In particular, speed of assessment of referrals was preferred in the open referral system.