Intensive case management for the severely mentally ill. Controlled trial. Intellectual functioning and outcome of patients with severe psychotic illness randomised to intensive case management. Report from the UK700 trial. Intensive case management in Australia: a randomized controlled trial. Heavy users of acute psychiatric beds: randomized controlled trial of enhanced community management in an outer London borough. Outcome of case management based on the strengths model compared to standard care. A randomised controlled trial. Randomized trial of general hospital and residential alternative care for patients with severe and persistent mental illness. Family-based intervention for schizophrenic patients in China. A randomised controlled trial. Are day hospitals effective for acutely ill psychiatric patients? A European multicenter randomized controlled trial. Effectiveness of an intervention to reduce sickness absence in patients with emotional distress or minor mental disorders: a randomized controlled effectiveness trial.
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. Little research has been carried out on the benefits of intensive case management (ICM) for people with borderline IQ and severe mental illness.
                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.
                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.
                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.
                ICM appears to be a cost-effective strategy for a subgroup of patients with severe psychosis with cognitive deficits. This study compared intensive case management (ICM) with standard clinical case management in a well-resourced community mental health service in Australia. A total of 73 severely disabled clients of an existing clinical service were randomly allocated to either ICM (caseload 10 clients per clinician) or standard case management (caseload up to 30 clients per clinician) and followed up for 12 months. A greater proportion of clients receiving ICM showed improved social functioning, these clients had fewer psychiatric hospital admissions involving police, and were more likely to engage and remain in treatment compared to those who received standard case management. Clients receiving ICM did not show a reduction in hospitalization duration or total number of episodes. It is suggested that future studies of ICM should focus on which aspects of treatment produce positive outcomes, how they can be applied to routine clinical settings, and over what period of time outcomes are sustained. Heavy users of psychiatric services, often defined as the population that uses the most beds, consume a large part of the resources used by the whole service, despite being relatively small in number. Any intervention that reduces heavy use is therefore likely to lead to significant savings, and enhancement of standard care using a form of intensive case management akin to assertive community treatment was thought to be a pragmatic strategy for testing in this group.
                The effectiveness of enhanced community management (ECM) was compared with standard care alone in heavy users, who represented the 10% of patients with the highest number of hospital admissions and occupied bed days over the previous 6.5 years in an outer London borough. One hundred and ninety-three patients were randomly assigned to ECM or standard care and their use of services was determined after 1 and 2 years, with assessments of costs, clinical symptoms, needs, and social function made before entry into the study and after 1 and 2 years.
                Despite a 24 fold increase in community contacts in the study group, there were no significant differences between the two groups in any of the main outcome measures. Small savings on in-patient and day-hospital service costs were counterbalanced by the increased costs of outpatient and community care for the subjects assigned to ECM. Clinical outcome data derived from interviews in two-thirds of the subjects were similar in both groups.
                Providing additional intensive community focused care to a group of heavy users of psychiatric in-patient services in an outer London borough does not lead to any important clinical gains or reduced costs of psychiatric care. The outcome of less intensive case management services, such as the strengths model, is still inconclusive, which suggests a need for more controlled studies. The aim of the present study was to investigate the outcome of a strengths model of case management service (SCM) compared to standard care.
                Seventy-seven clients with a mental illness and a serious impairment in functioning in social contacts, housing or work situation were randomly allocated to SCM or standard care. Outcome was assessed with regard to use of psychiatric services, changes in symptomatology, psychosocial functioning, social network, needs for care, quality of life and client satisfaction with care. The follow-up period was 36 months.
                The results showed a greater reduction in needs for care in clients receiving SCM. No differences in clinical or social outcome were shown. Clients receiving SCM also used significantly less days in psychiatric inpatient services and were generally more satisfied with the psychiatric services offered.
                SCM failed to improve clinical and social outcome compared to standard care, but was more successful in reducing days spent in hospital, and the clients were also more satisfied with the service compared to standard care. Severe and persistent mental illnesses are often lifelong and characterized by intermittent exacerbations requiring hospitalization. Providing needed care within budgetary constraints to this largely publicly subsidized population requires technologies that reduce costly inpatient episodes. The authors report a prospective randomized trial to test the clinical effectiveness of a model of acute residential alternative treatment for patients with persistent mental illness requiring hospital-level care.
                Patients enrolled in the Montgomery County, Md., public mental health system who experienced an illness exacerbation and were willing to accept voluntary treatment were randomly assigned to the acute psychiatric ward of a general hospital or a community residential alternative. There were no psychopathology-based exclusion criteria. Treatment episode symptom improvement, satisfaction, discharge status, and 6-month pre- and postepisode acute care utilization, psychosocial functioning, and patient satisfaction were assessed.
                Of 185 patients, 119 (64%) were successfully placed at their assigned treatment site. Case mix data indicated that patients treated in the hospital (N = 50) and the alternative (N = 69) were comparably ill. Treatment episode symptom reduction and patient satisfaction were comparable for the two settings. Nine (13%) of 69 patients randomly assigned to the alternative required transfer to a hospital unit; two (4%) of 50 patients randomly assigned to the hospital could not be stabilized and required transfer to another facility. Psychosocial functioning, satisfaction, and acute care use in the 6 months following admission were comparable for patients treated in the two settings and did not differ significantly from functioning before the acute episode.
                Hospitalization is a frequent and high-cost consequence of severe mental illness. For patients who do not require intensive general medical intervention and are willing to accept voluntary treatment, the alternative program model studied provides outcomes comparable to those of hospital care. We developed and evaluated a comprehensive, ongoing intervention for families of schizophrenic patients appropriate for China's complex family relationships and unique social environment.
                Sixty-three DSM-III-R schizophrenic patients living with family members were enrolled when admitted to hospital and randomly assigned to receive standard care or a family-based intervention that included monthly 45-minute counselling sessions focused on the management of social and occupational problems, medication management, family education, family group meetings, and crisis intervention.
                At 6, 12, and 18-month follow-ups by blind evaluators, the proportion of subjects rehospitalised was lower, the duration of rehospitalisation was shorter, and the duration of employment was longer in the experimental group than in the control group; these differences were statistically significant at the 12 and 18-month follow-ups and were not explained by differences in drug compliance. Family intervention was associated with significantly lower levels of family burden.
                This intervention is less costly than standard treatment, is suitable for urban families of schizophrenic patients in China and feasible given the constraints of the Chinese mental health system. Acute psychiatric day care has been proposed as an alternative to conventional inpatient care, yet the evidence of its effectiveness is inconsistent and based only on single-site studies in 3 countries. The aim of this multicenter randomized controlled trial was to establish the effectiveness of acute day hospital care in a large sample across a range of mental health care systems.
                The trial was conducted from December 2000 to September 2003 in 5 European countries, with a sample of 1117 voluntarily admitted patients. Immediately before or very shortly after admission to the participating psychiatric facilities, patients were randomly allocated to treatment in a day hospital or an inpatient ward. Psychopathology, treatment satisfaction, subjective quality of life, and social disabilities were assessed at admission, at discharge, and 3 and 12 months after discharge. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted using fixed-effects linear models with structured error covariance matrices and covariates.
                Day hospital care was as effective as conventional inpatient care with respect to psychopathologic symptoms, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life. It was more effective on social functioning at discharge and at the 3- and 12-month follow-up assessments.
                This study, which has more than doubled the existing evidence base, has shown that day hospital care is as effective on clinical outcomes as conventional inpatient care and more effective on social outcomes.
                ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00153959. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an activating intervention designed to reduce sick leave duration in patients with emotional distress or minor mental disorders.
                In a 1.5-year randomized controlled trial, 194 patients with minor mental disorders received either an experimental intervention by social workers or general practitioners' usual care. The intervention focused on understanding causes, developing and implementing problem-solving strategies and promoting early work resumption. Outcome measures were sick leave duration, mental health and physical health (questionnaires included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire and SF-36), all measured at baseline at and 3, 6 and 18 months later. Multilevel analyses were used to evaluate differences between groups.
                The groups did not differ significantly on any of the outcome measures, except that the experimental group reported higher satisfaction with treatment.
                Although the intervention has benefits, it was not successful at its primary goal (i.e., to reduce sick leave duration in patients with emotional distress or minor mental disorders). Programs aimed at the reduction of sick leave duration may yield better results if targeted at patients with more severe emotional problems than at those with exclusively emotional distress or minor mental disorders, or if delivered by caregivers who are closer to the work environment than are social workers, such as occupational physicians.
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.