Outcomes of five years of continuous intensive case management

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.

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.

Co-occurring depressive symptoms in the older patient with schizophrenia

Clinicians treating older patients with schizophrenia are often challenged by patients presenting with both depressive and psychotic features. The presence of co-morbid depression impacts negatively on quality of life, functioning, overall psychopathology and the severity of co-morbid medical conditions. Depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia include major depressive episodes (MDEs) that do not meet criteria for schizoaffective disorder, MDEs that occur in the context of schizoaffective disorder and subthreshold depressive symptoms that do not meet criteria for MDE. Pharmacological treatment of patients with schizophrenia and depression involves augmenting antipsychotic medications with antidepressants. Recent surveys suggest that clinicians prescribe antidepressants to 30% of inpatients and 43% of outpatients with schizophrenia and depression at all ages. Recent trials addressing the efficacy of this practice have evaluated selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as fluoxetine, sertraline, fluvoxamine and citalopram. These trials have included only a small number of subjects and few older subjects participated; furthermore, the efficacy results have been mixed. Although no published controlled psychotherapeutic studies have specifically targeted major depression or depressive symptoms in older patients with schizophrenia, psychosocial interventions likely play a role in any comprehensive management plan in this population of patients.Our recommendations for treating the older patient with schizophrenia and major depression involve a stepwise approach. First, a careful diagnostic assessment to rule out medical or medication causes is important as well as checking whether patients are adherent to treatments. Clinicians should also consider switching patients to an atypical antipsychotic if they are not taking one already. In addition, dose optimization needs to be targeted towards depressive as well as positive and negative psychotic symptoms. If major depression persists, adding an SSRI is a reasonable next step; one needs to start with a low dose and then cautiously titrate upward to reduce depressive symptoms. If remission is not achieved after an adequate treatment duration (8-12 weeks) or with an adequate dose (similar to that used for major depression without schizophrenia), switching to another agent or adding augmenting therapy is recommended.We recommend treating an acute first episode of depression for at least 6-9 months and consideration of longer treatment for patients with residual symptoms, very severe or highly co-morbid major depression, ongoing episodes or recurrent episodes. Psychosocial interventions aimed at improving adherence, quality of life and function are also recommended. For patients with schizophrenia and subsyndromal depression, a similar approach is recommended.Psychosis accompanying major depression in patients without schizophrenia is common in elderly patients and is considered a primary mood disorder; for these reasons, it is an important syndrome to consider in the differential diagnosis of older patients with mood and thought disturbance. Treatment for this condition has involved electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) as well as combinations of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications. Recent evidence suggests that combination treatment may not be any more effective than antidepressant treatment alone and ECT may be more efficacious overall.

The principles of effective case management of mental health services

This paper identifies ten principles or active ingredients of case management that are common to interventions that produced statistically significant positive outcomes for people with serious psychiatric disabilities. Twenty-two studies employing experimental or quasi-experimental designs were selected for inclusion in this review. The use of the principles for systems design is briefly discussed. The term case management is used throughout this article because it is the term that is used in the studies reviewed. We acknowledge that this term is considered pejorative to many people with psychiatric disabilities. People with psychiatric disabilities are not "cases" and they do not need to be "managed." A more accurate reflection of what this service entails is that it is the services or resources that are managed in order to help people reach their goals. Until a more appropriate title becomes globally recognized, the term should be used with sensitivity to the negative connotations it carries.

Service components of case management which reduce inpatient care use for persons with serious mental illness

This is a study of two types of case management: case management (CM) which provided the service coordination functions, and Intensive Case Management (ICM) which consisted of both the coordination function and the provision of direct support to the client. Using secondary data on public clients, characteristics of mental health service use were analyzed for 80 ICM and 84 CM clients. The ICM clients had significantly fewer episodes per patient and less inpatient days per year than the CM clients. These findings suggest that direct support services make a significant difference in reducing annual hospital care.

Expertise in Caring: A Source of Power

1. Caring generates power in relationships with patients and helps them to evolve. 2. Caring is more than an emotional response. It is acting in ways that demonstrate that people, relationships, and issues are important. 3. Continuity of care providers across settings help yield positive outcomes for patients.

The active ingredients of effective case management: a research synthesis

As we move to managed care, the nature and role of case management is in flux and undetermined. Based on the outcome research, this paper seeks to identify the common elements of effective case management practice to guide its development under the new financing schema.

Effectiveness of case management with severely and persistently mentally ill people

This meta-analytic review synthesizes the findings of 24 published studies dealing with the effectiveness of case management with the severely and persistently mentally ill. Summative findings were: (1) Overall, case management interventions are effective--75% of the clients who participate in them do better than the average client who does not; (2) The estimated preventive fraction (e.g., prevention of re-hospitalization) among clients who experience relatively intense case management service (case loads of 15 or less, 89%) is nearly 30% greater than that estimated among similar clients receiving less intensive service; and (3) Various case management practice models did not differ significantly on estimated effectiveness. Important questions concerning the differential effectiveness of case management by specific program, worker, client, and client-worker relationship characteristics remain to be answered.

An economic evaluation of schizophrenia--1991

In 1991, the costs for schizophrenia, which has a lifetime prevalence of 1.5% among adult Americans, totaled $65 billion. Costs were broken down into their direct and indirect components. Direct costs, which totaled $19 billion dollars, consisted of treatment-related expenditures such as those for inpatients and outpatients, as well as nontreatment-related expenditures such as those for the criminal justice system used by individuals with schizophrenia. The direct costs were fairly similar to those of other recent estimates of the cost of schizophrenia. Indirect costs, which were $46 billion dollars, included the lost productivity of both wage earners ($24 billion) and homemakers ($4.5 billion), individuals who were in institutions ($4.5 billion) or who had committed suicide ($7 billion), and caregivers who took care of schizophrenic family members ($7 billion). Our method for calculating the indirect costs was slightly different than methods used in prior studies, which may account for our estimates being higher. The method for determining each expenditure is provided, and the implications of these staggering costs are discussed.

PILOT STUDY RESULTS: The Psychiatric RN Case Manager

1. It is important to examine client and staff satisfaction with the RN case management (RNCM) model to enhance the quality of care in psychiatric settings. 2. Ninety-two percent of clients surveyed ranked the RNCM care as "excellent" or "above average." Clients valued most the humanistic role of the RNCM and repeatedly commented on the importance of the nurse being caring, genuine, and supportive. 3. RNCMs expressed high satisfaction with their role, which they described as collaborative with the psychiatrist, yet also professional and independent. Psychiatrists expressed a high degree of confidence that clients were receiving excellent care by competent nurse professionals.

The efficacy of case management services for severely mentally disabled clients

A comprehensive review of published and unpublished research studies of case management for severely mentally disabled adults was undertaken. This yielded 20 studies of four models of case management, Full Support, Personal Strengths, Rehabilitation and Expanded Broker Models. This article reviews these models, the research studies, the outcomes of these studies and conclusions that can be drawn regarding the efficacy of case management services for severely mentally disabled adults. Future directions for research in this area are recommended.

Professionally Speaking

The nurse needs to have a working knowledge of the needs of the seriously mentally ill and their families and effective treatment modalities, including therapeutic use of self, networking and social systems, crisis intervention, pharmacology, physical and psychosocial assessment skills, psychosocial rehabilitation, collaborative skills, teaching skills, psychoeducation, management and leadership skills, research, group skills, psychopathology, relevant legislation, biological psychiatry, and community resources. The ANA Standards of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing Practice (1982) provides a broad framework for the nurse case manager.