Inpatient stays before and after outpatient commitment

Hospital Utilization Outcomes Following Assignment to Outpatient Commitment

Outpatient civil commitment (OCC) requires people with severe mental illness (SMI) to receive needed-treatment addressing imminent-threats to health and safety. When available, such treatment is required to be provided in the community as a less restrictive alternative (LRA) to psychiatric-hospitalization. Variance in hospital-utilization outcomes following OCC-assignment has been interpreted as OCC-failure. This review seeks to specify factors accounting for this outcome-variation and to determine whether OCC is used effectively. Twenty-five studies, sited in seven meta-analyses and subsequently published investigations, assessing post-OCC-assignment hospital utilization outcomes were reviewed. Studies were grouped by structural pre-determinants of hospital-utilization and OCC-implementation-i.e. deinstitutionalization (bed-availability), availability of a less restrictive alternative to hospitalization, and illness severity. Design quality at study completion was ranked on causal-certainty. In OCC-follow-up-studies, deinstitutionalization associated hospital-bed-cuts, when not taken into account, ensured lower hospital-bed-day utilization. OCC-assignment coupled with aggressive case-management was associated with reduced-hospitalization. With limited community-service, hospitalizations increased as the default option for providing needed-treatment. Follow-up studies showed less hospitalization while on OCC-assignment and more outside of it. Studies using fixed-follow-up periods usually found increased-utilization as patients spent less time under OCC-supervision than outside it. Comparison-group-studies reporting no between-group differences bring more severely ill OCC-patients to equivalent use as less disturbed patients, a success. Mean evidence-rank for causal-certainty 2.96, range 2-4, of 5 with no study ranked 1, the highest rank. Diverse mental health systems yield diverse OCC hospital-utilization outcomes, each fulfilling the law's legal mandate to provide needed-treatment protecting health and safety.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

It is controversial whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (2003, 2008, 2012, 8 November 2013, 3 June 2016). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another pre-existing form of CCT such as supervised discharge.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and, where possible, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE approach to create 'Summary of findings' tables for key outcomes and assessed the risk of bias of these findings.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included three studies (n = 749). Two were based in the USA and one in England. The English study had the least bias, meeting three out of the seven criteria of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. The two other studies met only one criterion, the majority being rated unclear.Two trials from the USA (n = 416) compared court-ordered 'outpatient commitment' (OPC) with entirely voluntary community treatment. There were no significant differences between OPC and voluntary treatment by 11 to 12 months in any of the main health service or participant level outcome indices: service use - readmission to hospital (2 RCTs, n= 416, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, low-quality evidence); service use - compliance with medication (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19, low-quality evidence); social functioning - arrested at least once (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.52, low-quality evidence); social functioning - homelessness (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.15, low-quality evidence); or satisfaction with care - perceived coercion (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.89, low-quality evidence). However, one trial found the risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80, low-quality evidence).The other RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive and briefer supervised discharge (Section 17) in England. The study found no difference between the two groups for either the main health service outcomes including readmission to hospital by 12 months (1 RCT, n = 333, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence), or any of the participant level outcomes. The lack of any difference between the two groups persisted at 36 months' follow-up.Combining the results of all three trials did not alter these results. For instance, participants on any form of CCT were no less likely to be readmitted than participants in the control groups whether on entirely voluntary treatment or subject to intermittent supervised discharge (3 RCTs, n = 749, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16 moderate-quality evidence). In terms of NNTB, it would take 142 orders to prevent one readmission. There was no clear difference between groups for perceived coercion by 12 months (3 RCTs, n = 645, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.71, moderate-quality evidence).There were no data for adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These review data show CCT results in no clear difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with voluntary care or brief supervised discharge. People receiving CCT were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Short periods of conditional leave may be as effective (or non-effective) as formal compulsory treatment in the community. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this legislation is introduced. However, conclusions are based on three relatively small trials, with high or unclear risk of blinding bias, and low- to moderate-quality evidence. In addition, clinical trials may not fully reflect the potential benefits of this complex intervention.

Effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders: The International Evidence

OBJECTIVE

Community treatment orders (CTOs) exist in more than 75 jurisdictions worldwide. This review outlines findings from the international literature on CTO effectiveness.

METHOD

The article draws on 2 comprehensive systematic reviews of the literature published before 2013, then uses the same search terms to identify studies published between 2013 and 2015. The focus is on what the literature as a whole tells us about CTO effectiveness, with particular emphasis on the strength and weaknesses of different methodologies.

RESULTS

The results from more than 50 nonrandomized studies show mixed results. Some show benefits from CTOs while others show none on the most frequently reported outcomes of readmission, time in hospital, and community service use. Results from the 3 existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show no effect of CTOs on a wider range of outcome measures except that patients on CTOs are less likely than controls to be a victim of crime. Patients on CTOs are, however, likely to have their liberty restricted for significantly longer periods of time. Meta-analyses pooling patient data from RCTs and high quality nonrandomized studies also find no evidence of patient benefit, and systematic reviews come to the same conclusion.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence of patient benefit from current CTO outcome studies. This casts doubt over the usefulness and ethics of CTOs. To remove uncertainty, future research must be designed as RCTs.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illnesses reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning. Given the widespread use of such powers it is important to assess the effects of this type of legislation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We undertook searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register 2003, 2008, and Science Citation Index. We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors of each included study.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials of compulsory community treatment compared with standard care for people with severe mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected and quality assessed studies and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed effects risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two randomised clinical trials (total n = 416) of court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) from the USA. We found little evidence that compulsory community treatment was effective in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.2); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89). However, risk of victimisation may decrease with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.5 CI 0.31 to 0.8). In terms of numbers needed to treat (NNT), it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest. The NNT for the reduction of victimisation was lower at six (CI 6 to 6.5). A new search for trials in 2008 did not find any new trials that were relevant to this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compulsory community treatment results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard care. People receiving compulsory community treatment were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this type of legislation is introduced.

Use of community treatment orders to prevent psychiatric hospitalization

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to analyse how, for whom, under what circumstances, and with what consequences for a patient's treatment career the community treatment orders (CTOs) were used to prevent psychiatric hospitalization during the course of a decade in Victoria, Australia.

METHOD

Records were obtained from the Victorian Psychiatric Case Register for 8579 patients who were exposed to CTOs. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to determine the characteristics of patients solely selected for placement on orders directly from the community, in lieu of hospitalization, versus patients selected for placement on orders only from the hospital or for those who experienced both hospital- and community-initiated orders. Ordinary least squares regression was used to evaluate the relationship of sole reliance on community-initiated orders and experienced changes in future hospital utilization.

RESULTS

CTOs were infrequently issued directly from the community by comparison with outpatient orders issued at termination of inpatient episodes. Patients whose placements on orders were carried out only through direct community placement differed from those whose placement was primarily initiated from hospital or from both hospital and community. The former group, although largely consisting of people with schizophrenia, was less likely to include such patients than the comparison samples. It also included fewer male subjects and 'never married' individuals as well as more individuals with major affective disorders. Those served solely with community-initiated orders had significantly less use of subsequent inpatient care than individuals in the comparison samples, all other diagnostic and pre-morbid adjustment characteristics taken into account.

CONCLUSION

For patients at risk of beginning a career of long-term psychiatric hospitalization, sole reliance on community-initiated orders appeared to prevent additional hospital involvement. The issuance of orders from hospital and the combined-order strategy were associated with protective oversight throughout extended inpatient careers. Sole reliance on community-initiated outpatient orders provided a 'least restrictive' alternative to hospitalization.

Factors in the selection of patients for conditional release from their first psychiatric hospitalization

OBJECTIVE

This study examined a sample of patients in Victoria, Australia, to identify factors in selection for conditional release from an initial hospitalization that occurred within 30 days of entry into the mental health system.

METHODS

Data were from the Victorian Psychiatric Case Register. All patients first hospitalized and conditionally released between 1990 and 2000 were identified (N=8,879), and three comparison groups were created. Two groups were hospitalized within 30 days of entering the system: those who were given conditional release and those who were not. A third group was conditionally released from a hospitalization that occurred after or extended beyond 30 days after system entry. Logistic regression identified characteristics that distinguished the first group. Ordinary least-squares regression was used to evaluate the contribution of conditional release early in treatment to reducing inpatient episodes, inpatient days, days per episode, and inpatient days per 30 days in the system.

RESULTS

Conditional release early in treatment was used for 11 percent of the sample, or more than a third of those who were eligible for this intervention. Factors significantly associated with selection for early conditional release were those related to a better prognosis (initial hospitalization at a later age and having greater than an 11th grade education), a lower likelihood of a diagnosis of dementia or schizophrenia, involuntary status at first inpatient admission, and greater community involvement (being employed and being married). When the analyses controlled for these factors, use of conditional release early in treatment was significantly associated with a reduction in use of subsequent inpatient care.

Conditional release: a less restrictive alternative to hospitalization?

OBJECTIVE

This study examined conditional release--that is, involuntary outpatient commitment orders upon release from hospitalization--as a least restrictive alternative to psychiatric hospitalization in Victoria, Australia.

METHODS

Records were obtained from the Victorian Psychiatric Case Register for patients who experienced psychiatric hospitalization: between 1990 and 2000 a total of 8,879 patients were given conditional release and 16,094 were not.

RESULTS

Compared with the group that was hospitalized but did not receive a conditional release, the group that received a conditional release was more likely to have more prior hospitalizations of greater than average duration. Patients with schizophrenia were more likely to be given conditional release. Patients given conditional release experienced a care pattern involving briefer inpatient episodes (8.3 fewer days per episode), more inpatient days, and longer duration of restrictive care--that is, combined inpatient and conditional release periods (5.1 more days per month in care).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients at risk of long-term hospitalization, conditional release may help to shorten inpatient episodes by providing a least restrictive alternative to continued hospitalization. However, patients who were given conditional release doubled the amount of days they spent under restrictive care, compared with the amount of time they previously spent in the hospital before entering a period of combined inpatient and conditional release commitment. Additional oversight may have led to more frequent hospitalization. This consequence raises new questions regarding the possible benefits of such extended oversight and new challenges for release planning using conditional release as a least restrictive method of care.