Evaluation of a mental health treatment court with assertive community treatment. Understanding team-based quality improvement for depression in primary care. A randomized trial of medical care management for community mental health settings: the Primary Care Access, Referral, and Evaluation (PCARE) study. A controlled trial of home-based acute psychiatric services. I: Clinical and social outcome. An evaluation of a medication management training programme for community mental health professionals; service user level outcomes: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Randomised controlled trial of acute mental health care by a crisis resolution team: the north Islington crisis study. A trial of problem-solving by community mental health nurses for anxiety, depression and life difficulties among general practice patients. The CPN-GP study. Intensive case management for the severely mentally ill. Controlled trial. The effect on hospital admissions of psychiatric case management involving general practitioners: preliminary results.
Without active engagement, many adults with serious mental illnesses remain untreated in the community and commit criminal offenses, resulting in their placement in the jails rather than mental health facilities. A mental health treatment court (MHTC) with an assertive community treatment (ACT) model of case management was developed through the cooperative efforts of the criminal justice and mental health systems. Participants were 235 adults with a serious mental illness who were booked into the county jail, and who volunteered for the study. An experimental design was used, with participants randomly assigned to MHTC or treatment as usual (TAU), consisting of adversarial criminal processing and less intensive mental health treatment. Results were reported for 6 and 12 month follow-up periods. Clients in both conditions improved in life satisfaction, distress, and independent living, while participants in the MHTC also showed reductions in substance abuse and new criminal activity. Outcomes are interpreted within the context of changes brought about in the community subsequent to implementation of the MHTC.
                Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. To assess the impacts of the characteristics of quality improvement (QI) teams and their environments on team success in designing and implementing high quality, enduring depression care improvement programs in primary care (PC) practices.
                Two nonprofit managed care organizations sponsored five QI teams tasked with improving care for depression in large PC practices. Data on characteristics of the teams and their environments is from observer process notes, national expert ratings, administrative data, and interviews.
                Comparative formative evaluation of the quality and duration of implementation of the depression improvement programs developed by Central Teams (CTs) emphasizing expert design and Local Teams (LTs) emphasizing participatory local clinician design, and of the effects of additional team and environmental factors on each type of team. Both types of teams depended upon local clinicians for implementation.
                The CT intervention program designs were more evidence-based than those of LTs. Expert team leadership, support from local practice management, and support from local mental health specialists strongly influenced the development of successful team programs. The CTs and LTs were equally successful when these conditions could be met, but CTs were more successful than LTs in less supportive environments.
                The LT approach to QI for depression requires high local support and expertise from primary care and mental health clinicians. The CT approach is more likely to succeed than the LT approach when local practice conditions are not optimal. Poor quality of healthcare contributes to impaired health and excess mortality in individuals with severe mental disorders. The authors tested a population-based medical care management intervention designed to improve primary medical care in community mental health settings.
                A total of 407 subjects with severe mental illness at an urban community mental health center were randomly assigned to either the medical care management intervention or usual care. For individuals in the intervention group, care managers provided communication and advocacy with medical providers, health education, and support in overcoming system-level fragmentation and barriers to primary medical care.
                At a 12-month follow-up evaluation, the intervention group received an average of 58.7% of recommended preventive services compared with a rate of 21.8% in the usual care group. They also received a significantly higher proportion of evidence-based services for cardiometabolic conditions (34.9% versus 27.7%) and were more likely to have a primary care provider (71.2% versus 51.9%). The intervention group showed significant improvement on the SF-36 mental component summary (8.0% [versus a 1.1% decline in the usual care group]) and a nonsignificant improvement on the SF-36 physical component summary. Among subjects with available laboratory data, scores on the Framingham Cardiovascular Risk Index were significantly better in the intervention group (6.9%) than the usual care group (9.8%).
                Medical care management was associated with significant improvements in the quality and outcomes of primary care. These findings suggest that care management is a promising approach for improving medical care for patients treated in community mental health settings. While research has shown community-based psychiatric care to be as good as, or better than, hospital-based care, generalisation to clinical practice has been difficult. This prospective, randomised controlled study examined a community-based approach feasible within NHS conditions. Ninety-four patients were randomly allocated to experimental and 78 to control treatments and followed for one year. The groups were well matched apart from an excess of psychotic control patients. No differences in clinical or social functioning outcome were found. Both groups improved substantially on clinical measures in the first six weeks, with some slow consolidation thereafter. There were three suicides in the control group and one in the experimental group. Access to care was better in the experimental group (93% attended assessment) than in the control group (75% attended assessment). Antipsychotic treatment is important in reducing symptomatology and relapse in schizophrenia. Community mental health professionals (CMHPs) have a significant role in this treatment; however, evidence suggests that many are ineffective in medication management.
                To develop and evaluate a medication management training programme whose aims are to increase the effectiveness of pharmacological treatment and increase services users' involvement in treatment decisions.
                Twenty-eight pairs of CMHPs were recruited from mental health Trusts in England. For each practitioner an average of 3.4 service users were randomly selected for their 'study caseload'.
                A pragmatic cluster randomised trial assessed the service users of CMHPs allocated to medication management training or waiting list controls.
                All practitioner participants were taught to use a variety of assessment measures and undertook baseline assessments with their service users. The experimental practitioners then attended the training programme. At the 9-month endpoint the service users were re-assessed.
                After the outcome data was adjusted for clustering the trained practitioners made significant improvements in global psychopathology and service user involvement in treatment when compared to controls at 9 months.
                Training CMHPs in medication management has a positive impact on clinical outcomes and service user involvement in treatment. To evaluate the effectiveness of a crisis resolution team.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                260 residents of the inner London Borough of Islington who were experiencing crises severe enough for hospital admission to be considered.
                Acute care including a 24 hour crisis resolution team (experimental group), compared with standard care from inpatient services and community mental health teams (control group).
                Hospital admission and patients' satisfaction.
                Patients in the experimental group were less likely to be admitted to hospital in the eight weeks after the crisis (odds ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.32), though compulsory admission was not significantly reduced. A difference of 1.6 points in the mean score on the client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ-8) was not quite significant (P = 0.07), although it became so after adjustment for baseline characteristics (P = 0.002).
                Crisis resolution teams can reduce hospital admissions in mental health crises. They may also increase satisfaction in patients, but this was an equivocal finding. To compare the effectiveness of community mental health nurse (CMHN) problem-solving and generic CMHN care, against usual general practitioner (GP) care in reducing symptoms, alleviating problems, and improving social functioning and quality of life for people living in the community with common mental disorders; and to undertake a cost comparison of each CMHN treatment compared with usual GP care.
                A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial with three arms: CMHN problem-solving, generic CMHN care and usual GP care.
                General practices in two southern English counties were included in the study. CMHNs were employed by local NHS trusts providing community mental health services.
                Participants were GP patients aged 18--65 years with a new episode of anxiety, depression or reaction to life difficulties and had to score at least 3 points on the General Health Questionnaire-12 screening tool. Symptoms had to be present for a minimum of 4 weeks but no longer than 6 months.
                Patients were randomised to one of three groups: (1) CMHN problem-solving treatment, (2) generic CMHN treatment, or (3) usual GP care. All three groups of patients remained free to consult their GPs throughout the course of the study, and could be prescribed psychotropic drug treatments.
                Patients were assessed at baseline, and 8 weeks and 26 weeks after randomisation. The primary outcome measure was psychological symptoms measured on the Clinical Interview Schedule -- Revised. Other measures included social functioning, health-related quality of life, problem severity and satisfaction. The economic outcomes were evaluated with a cost--utility analysis.
                Twenty-four CMHNs were trained to provide problem-solving under supervision, and another 29 were referred patients for generic support. In total, 247 patients were randomised to the three arms of the study, referred by 98 GPs in 62 practices. All three groups of patients were greatly improved by the 8-week follow-up. No significant differences were found between the groups at 8 weeks or 26 weeks in symptoms, social functioning or quality of life. Greater satisfaction with treatment was found in the CMHN groups. CMHN care represented a significant additional health service cost and there were no savings in sickness absence.
                The study found that specialist mental health nurse support is no better than support from GPs for patients with anxiety, depression and reactions to life difficulties. The results suggest that healthcare providers could consider adopting policies of restricting referrals of unselected patients with common mental disorders to specialist CMHNs, although there may be other roles in primary care that CMHNs could play effectively. Further research should address the predictors of chronicity in common mental disorders and target extra treatment. More research is also needed into the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of problem-solving treatment for other disorders, of facilitated self-help treatments for common mental disorders and of CMHN care for people with severe and enduring mental illnesses, as well as the prevention of mental disorders. The aim was to compare the efficacy of intensive clinical case management (ICM) with standard community care in the management of 'hard to treat' patients with a severe mental illness.
                A randomised controlled trial was carried out in East Lambeth, a deprived area of inner London. Seventy people with psychosis designated as 'hard to treat' by referring teams were included; 35 were randomised to ICM (case load eight patients per worker), and 35 to standard care, which offered follow-up by a community psychiatric nursing service (30 patients per worker). Outcome measures were admissions and hospital bed utilisation; contact with services; symptomatology; social behaviour; social functioning; quality of life; patients' satisfaction with care at 9 and 18 months.
                There were no differences in patients' symptoms, social behaviour or social functioning. Quality of life was significantly improved in patients receiving ICM at 9 months. Satisfaction with care was significantly greater among case-managed patients. All ICM patients remained in contact with services throughout the study, while six control patients were refusing all contact with services at 18 months.
                ICM failed to improve the clinical outcome of 'hard to treat' patients. The service was successful in maintaining contact with patients, was greatly appreciated and had a positive effect on their perceived quality of life. A two year follow-up of two matched groups of subjects with chronic severe mental illness was performed in order to evaluate a new psychiatric case management system. One group (n = 59) received care through psychiatric case management, using an assertive community treatment model that directly involved general practitioners. The other group, matched for age, sex, diagnostic group and number of hospital admissions, received standard outpatient care. Comparing the two years before and after case management, the experimental group showed a dramatic fall in inpatient admission days while the control group admission days remained the same (median difference in admission days across matched subject pairs = 64.5, 95% C.I. from 134.5 to 16). The experimental group remained out of hospital longer before first readmission (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, P = 0.002). This type of case management programme can shorten or prevent admissions to psychiatric hospitals of patients with chronic mental illness, and increase their time before readmission.
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.