Quality of residential facilities in Italy: satisfaction and quality of life of residents with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

BACKGROUND

Recovery and human rights promotion for people with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders (SSDs) is fundamental to provide good care in Residential Facilities (RFs). However, there is a concern about rehabilitation ethos in RFs. This study aimed to investigate the care quality of Italian RFs, the quality of life (QoL) and care experience of residents with SSD.

METHODS

Fourty-eight RFs were assessed using a quality assessment tool (QuIRC-SA) and 161 residents with SSD were enrolled. Seventeen RFs provided high intensity rehabilitation (SRP1), 15 medium intensity (SRP2), and 16 medium-low level support (SRP3). Staff-rated tools measured psychiatric symptoms and psychosocial functioning; user-rated tools assessed QoL and satisfaction with services. RFs comparisons were made using ANOVA and Chi-squared.

RESULTS

Over two-thirds patients (41.5 y.o., SD 9.7) were male. Seventy-six were recruited from SRP1 services, 48 from SRP2, and 27 from SRP3. The lowest QuIRC-SA scoring was Recovery Based Practice (45.8%), and the highest was promotion of Human Rights (58.4%). SRP2 had the lowest QuIRC-SA ratings and SRP3 the highest. Residents had similar psychopathology (p = 0.140) and functioning (p = 0.537). SRP3 residents were more employed (18.9%) than SRP1 (7.9%) or SRP2 (2.2%) ones, and had less severe negative symptoms (p = 0.016) and better QoL (p = 0.020) than SRP2 residents. There were no differences in the RF therapeutic milieu and their satisfaction with care.

CONCLUSIONS

Residents of the lowest supported RFs in Italy had less severe negative symptoms, better QoL and more employment than others. The lowest ratings for Recovery Based Practice across all RFs suggest more work is needed to improve recovery.

Implementation of Psychodynamic Multifamily Groups for Severe Mental Illness: A Recovery-Oriented Approach

Background: Among Family-Based Services for the treatment of severe mental illnesses, multi-family models gained particular attention, given the potential usefulness of mutual feed-back, motivation and encouragement among families. Methods: The Psychodynamic Multi-Family Group Model has been proposed since 1997 in some Community Mental Health Services in Rome. Since 2011 multifamily groups are held weekly in all the six Districts of the Department of Mental Health that serves a population of more than one million people, and data have been collected since 2015 in three Districts. A total of 794 individuals attended the meetings in the period 2015-2019. Results: Eighty-six percent of those who started, attended more than one meeting. The mean of occurrences of participation among patients was 18.6, among mothers 25.6 and among fathers 21.6. The 794 participants belonged to 439 family units, among which 180 comprised only the patient, 76 only parent(s) or other close person(s), and 183 comprised parent(s) or close person(s) with the patient. Patients participating alone were older than those of families who participated as a whole. Families including the patient showed the longest duration of attendance and the highest prevalence of a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the index patient. Families who had been attending the multifamily groups since a long time maintained a high rate of attendance. Conclusions: Multifamily groups represent a setting where patients can meet with other people and professionals in a free still structured way, and with not strictly therapeutic objectives. The high number of patients who attended alone suggests that such participation corresponds to a self-perceived need of open and free setting facilitating sharing of problems and solutions. The good tenure of the interventions, the high participation, and the feasibility in the long-term suggest that multifamily groups can be implemented in the mental health services of a large city, are sustainable over many years, and can represent a valuable resource for many patients and families.