Service utilization and costs of care for severely mentally ill clients in an intensive case management program

Effectiveness of a Community-Based Intensive Case Management Model on Reducing Hospitalization for People With Severe Mental Illness in Seoul

OBJECTIVE

To overcome the limited effectiveness of standard case management services, the Seoul Intensive Case Management program (S-ICM) for patients with serious mental illnesses was introduced in 2017. This study aimed to evaluate its effectiveness in reducing the length of hospital stay.

METHODS

Monitoring data from April 2019 to March 2020 were retrieved from the Seoul Mental Health Welfare Center. A total of 759 participants with serious mental illnesses were included. The average length of admission per month was compared between the pre-ICM (previous year) and during-ICM periods. For post-ICM observation subgroup, average length of admission per month was compared between pre-ICM, during-ICM, and post-ICM periods. To determine the relative contributions of risk factors for during-ICM and post-ICM admission, multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The average admission stay for pre-ICM period was significantly longer than that for during-ICM period (1.47 vs. 0.26 days). Among the predictors for during-ICM admission, pre-ICM psychiatric admission was the most important risk factor, followed by medical aid beneficiary and suicidal behavior. In the subgroup analysis of the post-ICM observation period, the pre-ICM, during-ICM, and post-ICM average admission stays were 1.45, 0.29, and 0.57 days/month, respectively. There was a significant difference in the average length of stay between the pre-ICM and during-ICM periods and between the pre-ICM and post-ICM periods. Post-ICM admission risks included pre-ICM admission, S-ICM duration <3 months, and chronic unstable symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the S-ICM effectively reduces psychiatric hospitalization duration, at least over a short-term period.

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.

Experimental Studies of the Program of Assertive Community Treatment (PACT)

The effectiveness of the Program of Assertive Community Treatment (PACT) versus standard inpatient/outpatient treatment was investigated through a meta-analysis. The study included 19 peer-reviewed published articles describing controlled, randomized experiments comparing PACT to standard treatment of individuals with severe mental illness. Treatment was found to have a significant relationship with effectiveness on each of the following six indicators: number of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, social functioning, symptomatology, patient satisfaction, and cost. The use of PACT was associated with fewer admissions, shorter length of stay, higher social functioning, lower symptomatology, greater patient satisfaction, and lower cost. These findings were challenged, however, by the confounding effect of attrition and the small amount of total variance explained in the effectiveness indicators by the PACT intervention. Future replication studies of PACT using larger sample sizes and standardized measures of benefits and costs appear necessary to justify major shifts in mental health and vocational rehabilitation services and funding policies.

Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies for coordination of care to reduce use of health care services: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Frequent users of health care services are a relatively small group of patients who account for a disproportionately large amount of health care utilization. We conducted a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions to improve the coordination of care to reduce health care utilization in this patient group.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception until May 2014 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing quality improvement strategies for the coordination of care of frequent users of the health care system. Articles were screened, and data abstracted and appraised for quality by 2 reviewers, independently. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

We identified 36 RCTs and 14 companion reports (total 7494 patients). Significantly fewer patients in the intervention group than in the control group were admitted to hospital (relative risk [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.91). In subgroup analyses, a similar effect was observed among patients with chronic medical conditions other than mental illness, but not among patients with mental illness. In addition, significantly fewer patients 65 years and older in the intervention group than in the control group visited emergency departments (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.89).

INTERPRETATION

We found that quality improvement strategies for coordination of care reduced hospital admissions among patients with chronic conditions other than mental illness and reduced emergency department visits among older patients. Our results may help clinicians and policy-makers reduce utilization through the use of strategies that target the system (team changes, case management) and the patient (promotion of self-management).

Unmet needs in the management of schizophrenia

Studies on unmet needs during the last decades have played a significant role in the development and dissemination of evidence-based community practices for persistent schizophrenia and other severe mental disorders. This review has thoroughly considered several blocks of unmet needs, which are frequently related to schizophrenic disorders. Those related to health have been the first block to be considered, in which authors have examined the frequent complications and comorbidities found in schizophrenia, such as substance abuse and dual diagnosis. A second block has been devoted to psychosocial and economic needs, especially within the field of recovery of the persistently mentally ill. Within this block, the effects of the current economic difficulties shown in recent literature have been considered as well. Because no patient is static, a third block has reviewed evolving needs according to the clinical staging model. The fourth block has been dedicated to integrated evidence-based interventions to improve the quality of life of persons with schizophrenia. Consideration of community care for those reluctant to maintain contact with mental health services has constituted the fifth block. Finally, authors have aggregated their own reflections regarding future trends. The number of psychosocial unmet needs is extensive. Vast research efforts will be needed to find appropriate ways to meet them, particularly regarding so-called existential needs, but many needs could be met only by applying existing evidence-based interventions. Reinforcing research on the implementation strategies and capacity building of professionals working in community settings might address this problem. The final aim should be based on the collaborative model of care, which rests on the performance of a case manager responsible for monitoring patient progress, providing assertive follow-up, teaching self-help strategies, and facilitating communication among the patient, family doctor, mental health specialist, and other specialists.

The impact of Assertive Community Treatment on utilization of primary care and other outpatient health services: the North Carolina experience

BACKGROUND

A number of states have implemented Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams statewide. The extent to which team-based care in ACT programs substitutes or complements primary care and other types of health services is relatively unknown outside of clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze whether investments in ACT yield savings in primary care and other outpatient health services.

DESIGN

Patterns of medical and mental health service use and costs were examined using Medicaid claims files from 2000 to 2002 in North Carolina. Two-part models and negative binomial models compared individuals on ACT (n = 1,065 distinct individuals) with two control groups of Medicaid enrollees with severe mental illness not receiving ACT services (n = 1,426 and n = 41,717 distinct individuals).

RESULTS

We found no evidence that ACT affected utilization of other outpatient health services or primary care; however, ACT was associated with a decrease in other outpatient health expenditures (excluding ACT) through a reduction in the intensity with which these services were used. Consistent with prior literature, ACT also decreased the likelihood of emergency room visits and inpatient psychiatric stays.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the increasing emphasis and efforts toward integrating physical health and behavioral health care, it is likely that ACT will continue to be challenged to meet the physical health needs of its consumers. To improve primary care receipt, this may mean a departure from traditional staffing patterns (e.g., the addition of a primary care doctor and nurse) and expansion of the direct services ACT provides to incorporate physical health treatments.

Consumer-providers of care for adult clients of statutory mental health services

BACKGROUND

In mental health services, the past several decades has seen a slow but steady trend towards employment of past or present consumers of the service to work alongside mental health professionals in providing services. However the effects of this employment on clients (service recipients) and services has remained unclear.We conducted a systematic review of randomised trials assessing the effects of employing consumers of mental health services as providers of statutory mental health services to clients. In this review this role is called 'consumer-provider' and the term 'statutory mental health services' refers to public services, those required by statute or law, or public services involving statutory duties. The consumer-provider's role can encompass peer support, coaching, advocacy, case management or outreach, crisis worker or assertive community treatment worker, or providing social support programmes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of employing current or past adult consumers of mental health services as providers of statutory mental health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to March 2012), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1988 to March 2012), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to March 2012), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1981 to March 2009), Current Contents (OvidSP) (1993 to March 2012), and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of current or past consumers of mental health services employed as providers ('consumer-providers') in statutory mental health services, comparing either: 1) consumers versus professionals employed to do the same role within a mental health service, or 2) mental health services with and without consumer-providers as an adjunct to the service.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We conducted analyses using a random-effects model, pooling studies that measured the same outcome to provide a summary estimate of the effect across studies. We describe findings for each outcome in the text of the review with considerations of the potential impact of bias and the clinical importance of results, with input from a clinical expert.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 randomised controlled trials involving 2796 people. The quality of these studies was moderate to low, with most of the studies at unclear risk of bias in terms of random sequence generation and allocation concealment, and high risk of bias for blinded outcome assessment and selective outcome reporting.Five trials involving 581 people compared consumer-providers to professionals in similar roles within mental health services (case management roles (4 trials), facilitating group therapy (1 trial)). There were no significant differences in client quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to 0.20); depression (data not pooled), general mental health symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.24, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.05); client satisfaction with treatment (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.25), client or professional ratings of client-manager relationship; use of mental health services, hospital admissions and length of stay; or attrition (risk ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.09) between mental health teams involving consumer-providers or professional staff in similar roles.There was a small reduction in crisis and emergency service use for clients receiving care involving consumer-providers (SMD -0.34 (95%CI -0.60 to -0.07). Past or present consumers who provided mental health services did so differently than professionals; they spent more time face-to-face with clients, and less time in the office, on the telephone, with clients' friends and family, or at provider agencies.Six trials involving 2215 people compared mental health services with or without the addition of consumer-providers. There were no significant differences in psychosocial outcomes (quality of life, empowerment, function, social relations), client satisfaction with service provision (SMD 0.76, 95% CI -0.59 to 2.10) and with staff (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.79), attendance rates (SMD 0.52 (95% CI -0.07 to 1.11), hospital admissions and length of stay, or attrition (risk ratio 1.29, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.31) between groups with consumer-providers as an adjunct to professional-led care and those receiving usual care from health professionals alone. One study found a small difference favouring the intervention group for both client and staff ratings of clients' needs having been met, although detection bias may have affected the latter. None of the six studies in this comparison reported client mental health outcomes.No studies in either comparison group reported data on adverse outcomes for clients, or the financial costs of service provision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Involving consumer-providers in mental health teams results in psychosocial, mental health symptom and service use outcomes for clients that were no better or worse than those achieved by professionals employed in similar roles, particularly for case management services.There is low quality evidence that involving consumer-providers in mental health teams results in a small reduction in clients' use of crisis or emergency services. The nature of the consumer-providers' involvement differs compared to professionals, as do the resources required to support their involvement. The overall quality of the evidence is moderate to low. There is no evidence of harm associated with involving consumer-providers in mental health teams.Future randomised controlled trials of consumer-providers in mental health services should minimise bias through the use of adequate randomisation and concealment of allocation, blinding of outcome assessment where possible, the comprehensive reporting of outcome data, and the avoidance of contamination between treatment groups. Researchers should adhere to SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting standards for clinical trials.Future trials should further evaluate standardised measures of clients' mental health, adverse outcomes for clients, the potential benefits and harms to the consumer-providers themselves (including need to return to treatment), and the financial costs of the intervention. They should utilise consistent, validated measurement tools and include a clear description of the consumer-provider role (eg specific tasks, responsibilities and expected deliverables of the role) and relevant training for the role so that it can be readily implemented. The weight of evidence being strongly based in the United States, future research should be located in diverse settings including in low- and middle-income countries.

Effectiveness of a high end users program for persons with psychiatric disorders

To evaluate the effectiveness of an intensive system of case management for high end users of inpatient care in reducing psychiatric inpatient utilization. A prepost study design with a contemporaneous comparison group was employed to determine the effects of a State designed intervention to reduce inpatient care for adults with a mental health disorder who had high utilization of inpatient psychiatric care between 2004 and 2007. Logit and negative binomial regression models were used to determine the likelihood, frequency and total days of inpatient utilization in the post period as a function of the intervention. Data from administrative reporting forms and Medicaid claims were used to construct inpatient utilization histories and characteristics of 176 patients. Patients in both groups had a significant reduction in mean inpatient days. However, being in the intervention program did not result in lower odds of being re-hospitalized or in fewer episodes during the study period.

Predisposing, enabling, and need factors associated with high service use in a public mental health system

The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) To investigate the individual- and system-level characteristics associated with high utilization of acute mental health services according to a widely-used theory of service use-Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Service Use -in individuals enrolled in a large, public-funded mental health system; and (2) To document service utilization by high use consumers prior to a transformation of the service delivery system. We analyzed data from 10,128 individuals receiving care in a large public mental health system from fiscal years 2000-2004. Subjects with information in the database for the index year (fiscal year 2000-2001) and all of the following 3 years were included in this study. Using logistic regression, we identified predisposing, enabling, and need characteristics associated with being categorized as a single-year high use consumer (HU: >3 acute care episodes in a single year) or multiple-year HU (>3 acute care episodes in more than 1 year). Thirteen percent of the sample met the criteria for being a single-year HU and an additional 8% met the definition for multiple-year HU. Although some predisposing factors were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of being classified as a HU (younger age and female gender) relative to non-HUs, the characteristics with the strongest associations with the HU definition, when controlling for all other factors, were enabling and need factors. Homelessness was associated with 115% increase in the odds of ever being classified as a HU compared to those living independently or with family and others. Having insurance was associated with increased odds of being classified as a HU by about 19% relative to non-HUs. Attending four or more outpatient visits was an enabling factor that decreased the chances of being defined as a HU. Need factors, such as having a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychotic disorder or having a substance use disorder increased the likelihood of being categorized as a HU. Characteristics with the strongest association with heavy use of a public mental health system were enabling and need factors. Therefore, optimal use of public mental services may be achieved by developing and implementing interventions that address the issues of homelessness, insurance coverage, and substance use. This may be best achieved by the integration of mental health, intensive case management, and supportive housing, as well as other social services.

Programas de continuidad de cuidados: éxitos, fracasos y retos futuros

Los programas de continuidad de cuidados surgen a finales de los años 70 en EEUU, en respuesta a los problemas detectados durante del proceso de desintitucionalización de los hospitales psiquiátricos. Desde entonces, se han extendido por todo el mundo, con variaciones y peculiaridades según las regiones, convirtiéndose en piedra angular de la atención a las personas con enfermedad mental grave y persistente. En este artículo se revisa el origen de estos programas, su desarrollo a lo largo de más de treinta años, la filosofía que los ha guiado en su devenir, así como los éxitos y fracasos en su desarrollo.

The relationship between case manager expectations and outcomes of persons diagnosed with schizophrenia

The present study examined the relationship between case managers' expectations about the abilities of persons diagnosed with schizophrenia and the outcomes (as indicated via chart review) of a randomly selected sample of clients diagnosed with schizophrenia on their caseload. Results indicate that clients of case managers with higher expectations averaged significantly more months of progress in employment than clients of case managers with lower expectations. Case manager expectations were also better predictors of the number of days employed than other case manager and consumer characteristics, however the type of expectation was a critical determinant of the direction of the effect. Case manager expectations were not related to outcomes in living situation.

WITHDRAWN: Case management for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

Since the 1960s, in many parts of the world, large psychiatric were closed down and people were treated in outpatient clinics, day centres or community mental health centres. Rising readmission rates suggested that this type of community care may be less effective than anticipated. In the 1970s case management arose as a means of co-ordinating the care of severely mentally ill people in the community.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of case management as an approach to caring for severely mentally ill people in the community. Case management was compared against standard care on four main indices: (i) numbers remaining in contact with the psychiatric services; (ii) extent of psychiatric hospital admissions; (iii) clinical and social outcome; and (iv) costs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of CINAHL (1997), the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (1997), EMBASE (1980-1995), MEDLINE (1966-1995), PsycLIT (1974-1995) and SCISEARCH (1997) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria were that studies should be randomised controlled trials that (i) had compared case management to standard community care; and (ii) had involved people with severe mental disorder mainly between the ages of 18-65. Studies of case management were defined as those in which the investigators described the intervention as 'case' or 'care' management rather than 'Assertive Community Treatment' or 'ACT'.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A study was carried out to test the reliability of the inclusion criteria. Categorical data were extracted twice and then cross-checked, any disagreements being resolved by discussion. Odds ratios and the number needed to treat were estimated. Continuous data collected by a measuring instrument was only included if the instrument (i) had been described in a peer-reviewed journal; (ii) was a self-report or had been completed by an independent rater; and (iii) provided a summary score for a broad area of functioning. Normally distributed continuous data were included if means and standard deviations were available. Non-normal data were included if analysed either after transformation or using non-parametric methods. Tests for heterogeneity were conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

Case management increased the numbers remaining in contact with services (for case management odds ratio = 0.70; 99%CI 0.50-0.98; n=1210). Case management approximately doubled the numbers admitted to psychiatric hospital (OR 1.84; 99% CI 1.33-2.57; n=1300). Except for a positive finding on compliance, from one study, case management showed no significant advantages over standard care on any psychiatric or social variable. Cost data did not favour case management but insufficient information was available to permit definitive conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Case management ensures that more people remain in contact with psychiatric services (one extra person remains in contact for every 15 people who receive case management), but it also increases hospital admission rates. Present evidence suggests that case management also increases duration of hospital admissions, but this is not certain. Whilst there is some evidence that case management improves compliance, it does not produce clinically significant improvement in mental state, social functioning, or quality of life. There is no evidence that case management improves outcome on any other clinical or social variables. Present evidence suggests that case management increases health care costs, perhaps substantially, although this is not certain. In summary, therefore, case management is an intervention of questionable value, to the extent that it is doubtful whether it should be offered by community psychiatric services. It is hard to see how policy makers who subscribe to an evidence-based approach can justify retaining case management as 'the cornerstone' of community mental health care. Case management is compared to the main alternative approach (ACT) in a forthcoming Cochrane review.

WITHDRAWN: Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) was developed in the early 1970s as a response to the closing down of psychiatric hospitals. ACT is a team-based approach aiming at keeping ill people in contact with services, reducing hospital admissions and improving outcome, especially social functioning and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) as an alternative to i. standard community care, ii. traditional hospital-based rehabilitation, and iii. case management. For each of the three comparisons the main outcome indices were i. remaining in contact with the psychiatric services, ii. extent of psychiatric hospital admissions, iii. clinical and social outcome and iv. costs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of CINAHL (1982-1997), the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (1997), EMBASE (1980-1997), MEDLINE (1966-1997), PsycLIT (1974-1997) and SCISEARCH (1997) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria were that studies should i. be randomised controlled trials, ii. have compared ACT to standard community care, hospital-based rehabilitation, or case management and iii. have been carried out on people with severe mental disorder the majority of whom were aged from 18 to 65. Studies of ACT were defined as those in which the investigators described the intervention as "Assertive Community Treatment" or one of its synonyms. Studies of ACT as an alternative to hospital admission, hospital diversion programmes, for those in crisis, were excluded. The reliability of the inclusion criteria were evaluated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three types of outcome data were available: i. categorical data, ii. numerical data based on counts of real life events (count data) and iii. numerical data collected by standardised instruments (scale data). Categorical data were extracted twice and then cross-checked. Peto Odds Ratios and the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. Numerical count data were extracted twice and cross-checked. Count data could not be combined across studies for technical reasons (the data were skewed) but all relevant observations based on count data were reported in the review. Numerical scale data were subject to a quality assessment. The validity of the quality assessment was itself assessed. Numerical scale data of suitable quality were combined using the standardised mean difference statistic where possible, otherwise the data were reported in the text or 'Other data tables' of the review.

MAIN RESULTS

ACT versus standard community care Those receiving ACT were more likely to remain in contact with services than people receiving standard community care (OR 0.51, 99%CI 0.37-0.70). People allocated to ACT were less likely to be admitted to hospital than those receiving standard community care (OR 0.59, 99%CI 0.41-0.85) and spent less time in hospital. In terms of clinical and social outcome, significant and robust differences between ACT and standard community care were found on i. accommodation status, ii. employment and iii. patient satisfaction. There were no differences between ACT and control treatments on mental state or social functioning. ACT invariably reduced the cost of hospital care, but did not have a clear cut advantage over standard care when other costs were taken into account.ACT versus hospital-based rehabilitation services Those receiving ACT were no more likely to remain in contact with services than those receiving hospital-based rehabilitation, but confidence intervals for the odds ratio were wide. People getting ACT were significantly less likely to be admitted to hospital than those receiving hospital-based rehabilitation (OR 0.2, 99%CI 0.09-0.46) and spent less time in hospital. Those allocated to ACT were significantly more likely to be living independently (OR (for not living independently) 0.19, 99%CI 0.06-0.54), but there were no other significant and robust differences in clinical or social outcome. There was insufficient data on costs to permit comparison.ACT versus case management There were no data on numbers remaining in contact with the psychiatric services or on numbers admitted to hospital. People allocated to ACT consistently spent fewer days in hospital than those given case management. There was insufficient data to permit robust comparisons of clinical or social outcome. The cost of hospital care was consistently less for those allocated to ACT, but ACT did not have a clear cut advantage over case management when other costs were taken into account.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ACT is a clinically effective approach to managing the care of severely mentally ill people in the community. ACT, if correctly targeted on high users of in-patient care, can substantially reduce the costs of hospital care whilst improving outcome and patient satisfaction. Policy makers, clinicians, and consumers should support the setting up of ACT teams.

Elderly patients with schizophrenia and depression: diagnosis and treatment

BACKGROUND

The treatment of older patients with schizophrenia and depressive symptoms poses many challenges for clinicians. Current classifications of depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia include: Major Depressive Episodes that occur in patients with schizophrenia and are not classified as schizoaffective disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, and Schizophrenia with subsyndromal depression in which depressive symptoms do not meet criteria for Major Depression. Research indicates that the presence of any of these depressive symptoms negatively impacts the lives of patients suffering from schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature related to older patients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders and co-occurring depressive symptoms, and to guide mental health professionals to better understand the diagnosis and treatment of depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of elderly patients with schizophrenia and depressive symptoms includes first reassessing the diagnosis to make sure symptoms are not due to a comorbid condition, metabolic problems or medications. If these are ruled out, pharmacological agents in combination with psychosocial interventions are important treatments for older patients with schizophrenia and depressive symptoms. A careful assessment of each patient is needed in order to determine which antipsychotic would be optimal for their care; second-generation antipsychotics are the most commonly used antipsychotics. Augmentation with an antidepressant medication can be helpful for the elderly patient with schizophrenia and depressive symptoms. More research with pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions is needed, however, to better understand how to treat this population of elderly patients.

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.

Case Management and Client Access to Health and Social Services in Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment

A primary goal of case management is to coordinate services across treatment settings and to integrate substance abuse services with other types of services offered in the community, including housing, mental health, medical, and social services. However, case management is a global construct that consists of several key dimensions, which include extent of case management coverage, the degree of management of the referral process, and the location of case management activity (on-site, off-site, or both). This study examines the relationship between specific dimensions of case management and the utilization of health and ancillary social services in outpatient substance abuse treatment. In general, results suggest that more active case management during the referral process and providing case management both on-site and off-site are most consistent with our predictions of greater use of health and ancillary social services by substance abuse clients. However, these effects are specific to general health care and mental health services. Case management appears to have little effect on use of social services or aftercare plans.

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.

Systematic review of case management

The purpose of the present paper was to review the current state of evidence for types of case management, focusing on the last 10 years since publication of the Cochrane Systematic Reviews of case management and assertive community treatment. A literature review of electronic databases from 1995 to the present to identify recent research on psychiatric case management, both original studies and reviews, was carried out. Original articles were organized on basis of year of study, experimental group and outcome variables to determine patterns. Sixty relevant papers were located. Thirty-nine are reports of experimental trials of types of case management and 21 are reviews or discussion papers. The focus of research is on assertive community treatment or intensive case management, with only five papers on other forms of less intense case management. Numerous outcomes have been examined, of those examined often enough to draw meaningful conclusions only one, engagement with services, has been consistently positive. All other outcomes have produced mixed results. The strength of findings in favour of case management has weakened over time. A heterogeneous group of experimental designs limits comparisons. Numerous issues with methodology and definitions of types of case management have beset research in this field. Assertive types of case management (including assertive community treatment and intensive case management) are more effective than standard case management in reducing total number of days spent in hospital, improving engagement, compliance, independent living and patient satisfaction. More important than the type of service configuration is to understand the clinical criteria of the services provided and their effectiveness.

Heavy use of acute in-patient psychiatric services: the challenge to translate a utilization pattern into service provision

OBJECTIVE

There is an inequality in resource utilization among acute psychiatric in-patients. About 20-30% of them absorb 60-80% of the total resources allocated to this form of treatment. This study intends to summarize findings related to heavy in-patient service use and to illustrate them by means of utilization data for acute psychiatric wards.

METHOD

Longitudinal assessment of consecutive acute in-patients hospitalized for the first time. Analysis of individual utilization patterns by using latent class cluster analysis.

RESULTS

Four groups with different utilization patterns were found all including heavy service users. In most cases heavy service use was temporary and could only be poorly predicted.

CONCLUSION

Specific preventive interventions to contain heavy service use seem to be out of reach for the majority of high utilizing patients. However, services that have proven effective in reducing admissions to in-patient treatment and length of stay may nevertheless help to reduce heavy service use.

Heavy use of psychiatric inpatient care from the perspective of the patients affected

BACKGROUND

Patients who spend an above-average amount of time in inpatient care are termed heavy users. Up to this point, very little has been known about what drives these patients to their heavy use of inpatient treatment.

AIM

For this reason, the present study investigates the causes for frequent inpatient admissions of heavy users from the perspective of the patients affected.

METHODS

Twenty heavy users who were identified in a quantitative preliminary study were interviewed using a qualitative analysis of the contents.

RESULTS

Heavy users housed in sheltered accommodation either experienced frequent inpatient stays because of their symptomatic burden, or because of poor integration in their residences. Among the heavy users living in private residences was a subgroup that compensated for the lack of support from the private sphere with frequent hospital visits. A second subgroup turned to hospital care only during acute relapse episodes. In a third subgroup, secondary substance abuse accounted for the high demand for inpatient treatment.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that, using community-based psychiatric support offers tailored to the needs of the heavy user subgroups, inpatient treatment could be avoided.

Costs of bipolar disorder

Bipolar disorder is a chronic affective disorder that causes significant economic burden to patients, families and society. It has a lifetime prevalence of approximately 1.3%. Bipolar disorder is characterised by recurrent mania or hypomania and depressive episodes that cause impairments in functioning and health-related quality of life. Patients require acute and maintenance therapy delivered via inpatient and outpatient treatment. Patients with bipolar disorder often have contact with the social welfare and legal systems; bipolar disorder impairs occupational functioning and may lead to premature mortality through suicide. This review examines the symptomatology of bipolar disorder and identifies those features that make it difficult and costly to treat. Methods for assessing direct and indirect costs are reviewed. We report on comprehensive cost studies as well as administrative claims data and program evaluations. The majority of data is drawn from studies conducted in the US; however, we discuss European studies when appropriate. Only two comprehensive cost-of-illness studies on bipolar disorder, one prevalence-based and one incidence-based, have been reported. There are, however, several comprehensive cost-of-illness studies measuring economic burden of affective disorders including bipolar disorder. Estimates of total costs of affective disorders in the US range from $US30.4-43.7 billion (1990 values). In the prevalence-based cost-of-illness study on bipolar disorder, total annual costs were estimated at $US45.2 billion (1991 values). In the incidence-based study, lifetime costs were estimated at $US24 billion. Although there have been recent advances in pharmacotherapy and outpatient therapy, hospitalisation still accounts for a substantial portion of the direct costs. A variety of outpatient services are increasingly important for the care of patients with bipolar disorder and costs in this area continue to grow. Indirect costs due to morbidity and premature mortality comprise a large portion of the cost of illness. Lost workdays or inability to work due to the disease cause high morbidity costs. Intangible costs such as family burden and impaired health-related quality of life are common, although it has proved difficult to attach monetary values to these costs.

International differences in home treatment for mental health problems. Results of a systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is perceived that North American home treatment studies reveal greater success in reducing days in hospital than do European studies. There are difficulties in extrapolating findings internationally.

AIMS

We aimed to determine whether North American studies find greater reductions in days in hospital and whether experimental service patients in North American studies spend less time in hospital.

METHOD

The results of a systematic review were analysed with respect to study location. Service components ascertained through follow-up were utilised to interpret the meta-analyses conducted.

RESULTS

Most of the 91 studies found were from the USA and UK. North American studies found a difference of one hospital day (per patient per month) more than European studies but there was no difference in experimental data between the two locations.

CONCLUSIONS

North American studies demonstrate greater differences in days in hospital but patients in their experimental services seem to spend no fewer days in hospital, implying a disparity in control services.

Intellectual functioning and outcome of patients with severe psychotic illness randomised to intensive case management. Report from the UK700 trial

BACKGROUND

Little research has been carried out on the benefits of intensive case management (ICM) for people with borderline IQ and severe mental illness.

AIMS

To compare outcome and costs of care of patients with severe psychotic illness with borderline IQ to patients of normal IQ and to assess whether ICM is more beneficial for the former than for the latter.

METHOD

The study utilises data from the UK700 multi-centre randomised controlled trial of case management. The main outcome measure was the number of days spent in hospital for psychiatric reasons. Secondary outcomes were costs of care and clinical outcome.

RESULTS

ICM was significantly more beneficial for borderline-IQ patients than those of normal IQ in terms of reductions in days spent in hospital, hospital admissions, total costs and needs and increased satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

ICM appears to be a cost-effective strategy for a subgroup of patients with severe psychosis with cognitive deficits.

Cost-effectiveness of intensive v. standard case management for severe psychotic illness. UK700 case management trial. UK700 Group

BACKGROUND

Intensive case management is commonly advocated for the care of the severely mentally ill, but evidence of its cost-effectiveness is lacking.

AIMS

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of intensive compared with standard case management for patients with severe psychosis.

METHOD

708 patients with psychosis and a history of repeated hospital admissions were randomly allocated to standard (case-loads 30-35) or intensive (case-loads 10-15) case management. Clinical and resource use data were assessed over two years.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found between intensive and standard case management in the total two-year costs of care per patient (means 24,550 Pounds and 22,700 Pounds, respectively, difference 1850 Pounds, 95% CI--1600 Pounds to 5300 Pounds). There was no evidence of differential effects in African-Caribbean patients or in the most disabled. Psychiatric in-patient hospital stay accounted for 47% of the total costs, but neither such hospitalisation nor other clinical outcomes differed between the randomised groups.

CONCLUSION

Reduced case-loads have no clear beneficial effect on costs, clinical outcome or cost-effectiveness. The policy of advocating intensive case management for patients with severe psychosis is not supported by these results.

Establishing the efficacy and cost effectiveness of community intensive case management of long-term mentally ill: a matched control group study

OBJECTIVE

The study attempted to identify whether chronic mentally ill persons after receiving intensive case management (ICM) could demonstrate improved inpatient service utilisation compared with a matched control group cohort. Costings were measured to observe whether the increase in providing intensive outpatient contacts would be offset by savings in reduced inpatient service utilisation.

METHOD

Eighty ICM patients were matched on ICD-9 diagnosis, age, gender, length of illness, age at first inpatient and outpatient contact, marital status, educational level, employment status, country of birth, year of arrival to Australia and religion. Inpatient bed-days and outpatient contacts were recorded and compared 12 months prior to ICM treatment, 12 and 24 months after ICM using within/between group repeated measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The ICM group demonstrate significant reductions in inpatient service utilisation both within the 12- and 24-month period after receiving ICM treatment. The cost differential by 24 months of treatment was $801,475 in favour of the ICM model. The increase in costs of outpatient contacts were offset by a significant reduction in inpatient service utilisation.

CONCLUSION

When outpatient contacts averaged one contact a week for the duration of the study period no significant reductions in inpatient service utilisation was recorded, as demonstrated by comparison with the matched control group. By increasing outpatient contacts by 3-4 contacts a week, inpatient contacts reduced by 36.8%. ICM is an efficacious and cost effective way to implement community-based services to the chronically long-term mentally ill.

Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) was developed in the early 1970s as a response to the closing down of psychiatric hospitals. ACT is a team-based approach aiming at keeping ill people in contact with services, reducing hospital admissions and improving outcome, especially social functioning and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) as an alternative to i. standard community care, ii. traditional hospital-based rehabilitation, and iii. case management. For each of the three comparisons the main outcome indices were i. remaining in contact with the psychiatric services, ii. extent of psychiatric hospital admissions, iii. clinical and social outcome and iv. costs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of CINAHL (1982-1997), the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (1997), EMBASE (1980-1997), MEDLINE (1966-1997), PsycLIT (1974-1997) and SCISEARCH (1997) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria were that studies should i. be randomised controlled trials, ii. have compared ACT to standard community care, hospital-based rehabilitation, or case management and iii. have been carried out on people with severe mental disorder the majority of whom were aged from 18 to 65. Studies of ACT were defined as those in which the investigators described the intervention as "Assertive Community Treatment" or one of its synonyms. Studies of ACT as an alternative to hospital admission, hospital diversion programmes, for those in crisis, were excluded. The reliability of the inclusion criteria were evaluated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three types of outcome data were available: i. categorical data, ii. numerical data based on counts of real life events (count data) and iii. numerical data collected by standardised instruments (scale data). Categorical data were extracted twice and then cross-checked. Peto Odds Ratios and the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. Numerical count data were extracted twice and cross-checked. Count data could not be combined across studies for technical reasons (the data were skewed) but all relevant observations based on count data were reported in the review. Numerical scale data were subject to a quality assessment. The validity of the quality assessment was itself assessed. Numerical scale data of suitable quality were combined using the standardised mean difference statistic where possible, otherwise the data were reported in the text or 'Other data tables' of the review.

MAIN RESULTS

ACT versus standard community care Those receiving ACT were more likely to remain in contact with services than people receiving standard community care (OR 0.51, 99%CI 0.37-0.70). People allocated to ACT were less likely to be admitted to hospital than those receiving standard community care (OR 0.59, 99%CI 0.41-0.85) and spent less time in hospital. In terms of clinical and social outcome, significant and robust differences between ACT and standard community care were found on i. accommodation status, ii. employment and iii. patient satisfaction. There were no differences between ACT and control treatments on mental state or social functioning. ACT invariably reduced the cost of hospital care, but did not have a clear cut advantage over standard care when other costs were taken into account. ACT versus hospital-based rehabilitation services Those receiving ACT were no more likely to remain in contact with services than those receiving hospital-based rehabilitation, but confidence intervals for the odds ratio were wide. People getting ACT were significantly less likely to be admitted to hospital than those receiving hospital-based rehabilitation (OR 0.2, 99%CI 0.09-0.46) and spent less time in hospital. Those allocated to ACT were significantly more likely to be living independently (OR (for not living independently) 0.19, 99%CI 0.06-0. (A

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.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1982-1997), the Cochrane Library (1998, Issue 2), EMBASE (1980-1997), MEDLINE (1966-1997), PsycLIT (1974-1997) and SCISEARCH (1997) were undertaken. The Journal of Personality Disorders was hand searched, and contact was made with colleagues at ENMESH, ISSPD and in forensic psychiatry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of CMHT management versus non-team standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The selection of trials, assessment of quality and data extraction was undertaken independently and in parallel by two reviewers. Where possible the data were entered into RevMan and an intention-to-treat analysis undertaken. Tests of heterogeneity were undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

CMHT management may be associated with fewer deaths by suicide and in suspicious circumstances (OR 0.32 CI 0.09-1.12). It causes less people to be dissatisfied with their care (OR 0.34 CI 0.2-0.59) and to leave the studies early (OR 0.61 CI 0.45-0.83). No clear difference was found in admission rates, overall clinical outcomes and duration of in-patient hospital treatment, although this was partly a consequence of poorly presented data.

REVIEWER'S 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.

Case management for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

Since the 1960s, in many parts of the world, large psychiatric were closed down and people were treated in outpatient clinics, day centres or community mental health centres. Rising readmission rates suggested that this type of community care may be less effective than anticipated. In the 1970s case management arose as a means of co-ordinating the care of severely mentally ill people in the community.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of case management as an approach to caring for severely mentally ill people in the community. Case management was compared against standard care on four main indices: (i) numbers remaining in contact with the psychiatric services; (ii) extent of psychiatric hospital admissions; (iii) clinical and social outcome; and (iv) costs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of CINAHL (1997), the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (1997), EMBASE (1980-1995), MEDLINE (1966-1995), PsycLIT (1974-1995) and SCISEARCH (1997) were undertaken. References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria were that studies should be randomised controlled trials that (i) had compared case management to standard community care; and (ii) had involved people with severe mental disorder mainly between the ages of 18-65. Studies of case management were defined as those in which the investigators described the intervention as 'case' or 'care' management rather than 'Assertive Community Treatment' or 'ACT'.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A study was carried out to test the reliability of the inclusion criteria. Categorical data were extracted twice and then cross-checked, any disagreements being resolved by discussion. Odds ratios and the number needed to treat were estimated. Continuous data collected by a measuring instrument was only included if the instrument (i) had been described in a peer-reviewed journal; (ii) was a self-report or had been completed by an independent rater; and (iii) provided a summary score for a broad area of functioning. Normally distributed continuous data were included if means and standard deviations were available. Non-normal data were included if analysed either after transformation or using non-parametric methods. Tests for heterogeneity were conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

Case management increased the numbers remaining in contact with services (for case management odds ratio = 0.70; 99%CI 0.50-0. 98; n=1210). Case management approximately doubled the numbers admitted to psychiatric hospital (OR 1.84; 99% CI 1.33-2.57; n=1300). Except for a positive finding on compliance, from one study, case management showed no significant advantages over standard care on any psychiatric or social variable. Cost data did not favour case management but insufficient information was available to permit definitive conclusions.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Case management ensures that more people remain in contact with psychiatric services (one extra person remains in contact for every 15 people who receive case management), but it also increases hospital admission rates. Present evidence suggests that case management also increases duration of hospital admissions, but this is not certain. Whilst there is some evidence that case management improves compliance, it does not produce clinically significant improvement in mental state, social functioning, or quality of life. There is no evidence that case management improves outcome on any other clinical or social variables. Present evidence suggests that case management increases health care costs, perhaps substantially, although this is not certain. In summary, therefore, case management is an intervention of questionable value, to the extent that it is doubtful whether it should be offered by community psychiatric services. It is hard to see how policy makers who subscribe to an evidence-based approach can justify retaining case management as 'the cornerstone' of community mental hea

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.

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.

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.

[Evaluation of extramural gerontopsychiatric treatment. I: On the possibility of clinical ambulatory and partial inpatient treatment of elderly psychiatric patients]

Based on data of a quantitative longitudinal study (one year) in two gerontopsychiatric catchment areas in Northrhine-Westfalia (FRG, City of Bielefeld and the district of Gütersloh) the question is discussed, whether an extramural (i.e. home-based outpatient- and day hospital-) treatment concept can be realized without selection of patients by diagnoses or severity of their mental disorders and that of their need of care. These three variables, which are important indicators of the necessary quality and quantity of treatment as well as of care for the patients, are surveyed. In three analytic steps the distribution of the gerontopsychiatric research population--concerning these three variables--over the three treatment settings (in-/outpatient and day hospital) in the two catchment areas is compared. For the district of Gütersloh--with an institution specialized on extramural treatment (the Gerontopsychiatric Center with a combination of a clinical outpatient service and a day hospital) the findings proof, that outpatient--in comparison with inpatient treatment--does not select patients by diagnoses nor by severity of their mental disorders nor by severity of their need of care. The outpatient service in Gütersloh--and nearly in the same degree the day hospital there--can actually integrate older patients with a higher severity of psychiatric symptoms and need of care in average than the inpatient departments in the two clinical gerontopsychiatric units under research.

Who is a heavy service user? Preliminary development of a screening instrument for prospective consumers of a mobile intensive treatment team

OBJECTIVE

The mobile intensive treatment team (MITT) of the Valley Integrated Adult Mental Health Service in Brisbane, Australia, aims to provide services in the community to people with severe and persistent mental illness who have traditionally been heavily reliant on inpatient services (i.e. heavy service users). The MITT screening instrument (MITTSI) was developed to provide an objective measure to appropriately identify patients for referral to the service.

METHOD

A literature review and a panel of multidisciplinary clinicians were consulted to identify a list of specific attributes that would assist in the detection of heavy service users. These attributes were then formulated into an easy-to-administer screening instrument entitled the MITTSI. The MITTSI was administered in an interview format to MITT case managers (intensive case management) and to case managers in standard case management with prospective MITT patients (prospective heavy service users).

RESULTS

Analyses of the responses indicated support for the MITTSI as a valid screening instrument in identifying heavy service users and for determining appropriate patients for referral to the MITT.

CONCLUSION

The MITTSI is an easy-to-administer screening instrument which provides clear guidelines for inclusion and exclusion, and is an objective measure regarding the patients' urgency for referral to the MITT. Follow-up of the MITTSI within a broader, longer-term project will attempt to further refine the MITTSI and to further determine its validity. Outcomes will be published at a later stage.

Diversity in case management modalities: the Summit model

Though ubiquitous in community mental health agencies, case management suffers from a lack of consensus regarding its definition, essential components, and appropriate application. Meaningful comparisons of various case management models await such a consensus. Global assessments of case management must be replaced by empirical studies of specific interventions with respect to the needs of specific populations. The authors describe a highly differentiated and prescriptive system of case management involving the application of more than one model of service delivery. Such a diversified and targeted system offers an opportunity to study the technology of case management in a more meaningful manner.

The role of case management in substance abuse treatment services for women and their children

Given that addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease, ongoing support services are considered a crucial part of preventing relapse and assisting clients in building the foundation for a drug-free life. Building on the substantial history of case management services with other at-risk client populations, drug treatment programs have begun to integrate case management services as an effective, cost-efficient method of delivering coordinated care. This article summarizes what managed care is, describes three conceptual models, discusses the primary functions of case management, and reviews various programs that have used case management for chemically dependent women and their children. Also included is a presentation of the results of a survey of 46 cases managers involved in seven pilot sites of California's Options for Recovery (OFR) treatment program, which combines case management and drug treatment. More than 50% of the respondents had worked as case managers previous to joining OFR. Approximately 38% of the OFR case managers spent 20% to 30% of their work week completing paperwork; 26% met with clients at least once per week and 25% met with clients every other week. The average case load was 20 clients, but case managers reported that 15 clients would be ideal. Nearly all the clients had a high-risk profile, with histories of varying problems ranging from drug use and abusive relationships to homelessness.

California's approach to perinatal substance abuse: toward a model of comprehensive care

In the late 1980s and early 1990s there was a growing awareness of the many health, social, psychological, treatment, and recovery needs of pregnant and parenting women and their drug-exposed children. This awareness sensitized policymakers and service providers to the necessity for women-centered programs. Many points of intervention, from primary prevention to treatment of drug dependence, are required to adequately respond to the various needs of this heterogeneous population; a comprehensive women-centered model of care is required that includes health, social, and personal support services. In addition, programs are needed that are aimed at the prevention and treatment of use, abuse, and addiction to alcohol and tobacco, which are dangerous to women's health and birth outcomes and responsible for more costs to society than are associated with use of illicit drugs. The existing system of social services and health care has been fragmented and uncoordinated in responding to substance-abusing women generally, and especially to those who are pregnant and/or parenting. A panel of experts and policymakers in California delineated the appropriate components of a model of service delivery for pregnant and parenting women. This article assesses the implementation of California programs that were informed by the model.

Do we still need mental hospitals?

“The debate is over” claimed a heading in a newspaper on the 1991 Amsterdam WHO conference ‘Changing mental health care in the cities of Europe’: “After half a century of debate of the issue of deinstitutionalisation the question is not any more if we should close the large mental hospitals, but what follows the closure and how to develop adequate community mental health care which replaces the functions of the mental hospital” (Gersons & Burns, 1992).

These ‘functions’ have actually secured the long-lasting success of the mental hospital which has been in the past and, to a certain extent, still is in a number of countries, the cornerstone of psychiatric care. It incorporates all the functions of a psychiatric system in a single, usually isolated facility, including crisis intervention, evaluation, treatment, aftercare, long-term custodial care, rehabilitation, etc. In order to phase down the mental hospital these functions have to be supplemented by newly established, discrete services disseminated in the community. The process is clearly a complex one, since it implies a transition from a system of care provided only in mental hospitals under medical direction, to one that is comprehensive in scope, community-orientated, and staffed by multidisciplinary teams.