PLC or TLC: is outpatient commitment the/an answer?

Finding Common Ground for Diverging Policies for Persons with Severe Mental Illness

Two diametrically opposed positions predominate discourse for the care and treatment of persons with severe mental illness: anti-deinstitutionalization and anti-institutionalization. Both share the same goal of ensuring best quality of life for those with severe psychiatric disorders, but pathways to achieving this goal are very different and have resulted in much contention. Supporters of each position espouse a different belief system regarding people with psychiatric disorders and their presumed capabilities, placing varying emphasis on maximizing protection of the community versus protection of individual rights, and result in contrasting mental health policies and practice orientations. The authors delineate the history from which these positions evolved, consequent views, and policies and practices that emerged from these differing attitudes. The article culminates in a proposed practice approach that offers a more balanced approach to serving adults with mental illness -navigating risk management by preserving freedom and opportunities of risk while affording mutually satisfactory "risk control."

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

It is controversial whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (2003, 2008, 2012, 8 November 2013, 3 June 2016). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another pre-existing form of CCT such as supervised discharge.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and, where possible, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE approach to create 'Summary of findings' tables for key outcomes and assessed the risk of bias of these findings.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included three studies (n = 749). Two were based in the USA and one in England. The English study had the least bias, meeting three out of the seven criteria of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. The two other studies met only one criterion, the majority being rated unclear.Two trials from the USA (n = 416) compared court-ordered 'outpatient commitment' (OPC) with entirely voluntary community treatment. There were no significant differences between OPC and voluntary treatment by 11 to 12 months in any of the main health service or participant level outcome indices: service use - readmission to hospital (2 RCTs, n= 416, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, low-quality evidence); service use - compliance with medication (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19, low-quality evidence); social functioning - arrested at least once (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.52, low-quality evidence); social functioning - homelessness (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.15, low-quality evidence); or satisfaction with care - perceived coercion (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.89, low-quality evidence). However, one trial found the risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80, low-quality evidence).The other RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive and briefer supervised discharge (Section 17) in England. The study found no difference between the two groups for either the main health service outcomes including readmission to hospital by 12 months (1 RCT, n = 333, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence), or any of the participant level outcomes. The lack of any difference between the two groups persisted at 36 months' follow-up.Combining the results of all three trials did not alter these results. For instance, participants on any form of CCT were no less likely to be readmitted than participants in the control groups whether on entirely voluntary treatment or subject to intermittent supervised discharge (3 RCTs, n = 749, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16 moderate-quality evidence). In terms of NNTB, it would take 142 orders to prevent one readmission. There was no clear difference between groups for perceived coercion by 12 months (3 RCTs, n = 645, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.71, moderate-quality evidence).There were no data for adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These review data show CCT results in no clear difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with voluntary care or brief supervised discharge. People receiving CCT were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Short periods of conditional leave may be as effective (or non-effective) as formal compulsory treatment in the community. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this legislation is introduced. However, conclusions are based on three relatively small trials, with high or unclear risk of blinding bias, and low- to moderate-quality evidence. In addition, clinical trials may not fully reflect the potential benefits of this complex intervention.

Effects of assisted outpatient treatment and health care services on psychotic symptoms

RATIONALE

An ongoing debate concerns acceptability, benefits, and shortcomings of coercive treatment such as assisted outpatient treatment (AOT). The hypothesis that involuntary commitment to outpatient treatment may lead to a better clinical outcome for a subgroup of persons with severe mental illness (SMI) is controversial. Nonetheless, positive effects of AOT may be mediated by an increased availability of healthcare resources or increased service use.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the course of delusions, hallucinations, and negative symptoms among patients with SMI receiving AOT compared to patients receiving non-compulsory treatment (NCT). Moreover, we assessed if the effects of AOT on psychotic symptoms were mediated by increased healthcare service use.

METHODS

This study used a quasi-experimental design to examine the effect of AOT and the use of healthcare services on psychotic symptoms. In total, 76 (41.3%) participants with SMI received AOT, and 108 (58.7%) received NCT. The participants were interviewed at baseline every 3 months up to 1 year. Propensity score matching was used to control for group differences.

RESULTS

In the basic model, AOT was associated with lower severity of psychotic symptoms over all follow-up points. In the model including healthcare service use, the frequency of case manager visits predicted a reduction in severity of all psychotic symptoms. The frequency of visits to the outpatient clinics, frequency of emergency room, and psychiatrist visits were independently associated with lower levels of delusional symptoms. Psychiatrist visits were related to a decrease in negative symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate that the treatment benefits of AOT are enhanced with the increased use of mental healthcare services, suggesting that the positive effect of AOT on psychotic symptoms is related to the availability of mental healthcare service use. Coercive outpatient treatment might be more effective through greater use of intensive services.

The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma on Seeking and Participating in Mental Health Care

Treatments have been developed and tested to successfully reduce the symptoms and disabilities of many mental illnesses. Unfortunately, people distressed by these illnesses often do not seek out services or choose to fully engage in them. One factor that impedes care seeking and undermines the service system is mental illness stigma. In this article, we review the complex elements of stigma in order to understand its impact on participating in care. We then summarize public policy considerations in seeking to tackle stigma in order to improve treatment engagement. Stigma is a complex construct that includes public, self, and structural components. It directly affects people with mental illness, as well as their support system, provider network, and community resources. The effects of stigma are moderated by knowledge of mental illness and cultural relevance. Understanding stigma is central to reducing its negative impact on care seeking and treatment engagement. Separate strategies have evolved for counteracting the effects of public, self, and structural stigma. Programs for mental health providers may be especially fruitful for promoting care engagement. Mental health literacy, cultural competence, and family engagement campaigns also mitigate stigma's adverse impact on care seeking. Policy change is essential to overcome the structural stigma that undermines government agendas meant to promote mental health care. Implications for expanding the research program on the connection between stigma and care seeking are discussed.

Involuntary outpatient treatment in patients with severe mental illness: a one-year follow-up study

INTRODUCTION

Involuntary outpatient treatment (IOT) aims to ensure adherence to therapy in patients with serious mental disease who are unaware of their illness and for whom treatment discontinuation carries a high risk of relapse.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of IOT in preventing relapse among patients with serious mental disease.

METHOD

A retrospective observational study was carried out on all of the patients (n=140) receiving IOT in the city of Valencia, Spain. Hospital service uses (emergency care, admissions and mean stay times) during the 12 months before and after the introduction of IOT were compared.

RESULTS

Patients with schizophrenia, delusional disorder or schizoaffective disorder showed a significant reduction in the number of admissions and days spent in the psychiatry ward during the year of IOT. The reduction in the number of visits to the emergency department was only significant for the patients with schizophrenia.

DISCUSSION

We conclude that involuntary outpatient treatment may be effective for patients with serious mental disease who are unaware of their illness and for whom treatment discontinuation carries a high risk of relapse.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of CCT for people with SMI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register and Science Citation Index (2003, 2008, and 2012). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary. We further updated this search on the 8 November 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another pre-existing form of compulsory community treatment such as supervised discharge.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat statistic (NNT). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to create a 'Summary of findings' table for outcomes we rated as important and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

All studies (n=3) involved patients in community settings who were followed up over 12 months (n = 752 participants).Two RCTs from the USA (total n = 416) compared court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) with voluntary community treatment. OPC did not result in significant differences compared to voluntary treatment in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.21, low grade evidence); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52, low grade evidence); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15, low grade evidence) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89, low grade evidence). However, risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50 CI 0.31 to 0.80). Other than perceived coercion, no adverse outcomes were reported. In terms of numbers needed to treat (NNT), it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest. The NNT for the reduction of victimisation was lower at six (CI 6 to 6.5).One further RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive supervised discharge in England and found no difference between the two for either the main outcome of readmission (1 RCT, n = 333, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.99 CI 0.74 to 1.32, medium grade evidence), or any of the secondary outcomes including social functioning and mental state. It was not possible to calculate the NNT. The English study met three out of the seven criteria of The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, the others only one, the majority being rated unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CCT results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard voluntary care. People receiving CCT were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Short periods of conditional leave may be as effective (or non-effective) as formal compulsory treatment in the community. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this legislation is introduced. However, conclusions are based on three relatively small trials, with high or unclear risk of blinding bias, and evidence we rated as low to medium quality.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders

BACKGROUND

There is controversy as to whether compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illnesses reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning. Given the widespread use of such powers it is important to assess the effects of this type of legislation.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical and cost effectiveness of compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We undertook searches of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register 2003, 2008, and Science Citation Index. We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors of each included study.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials of compulsory community treatment compared with standard care for people with severe mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected and quality assessed studies and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed effects risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (CI) and, where possible, the weighted number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two randomised clinical trials (total n = 416) of court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) from the USA. We found little evidence that compulsory community treatment was effective in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.2); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89). However, risk of victimisation may decrease with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.5 CI 0.31 to 0.8). In terms of numbers needed to treat (NNT), it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest. The NNT for the reduction of victimisation was lower at six (CI 6 to 6.5). A new search for trials in 2008 did not find any new trials that were relevant to this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compulsory community treatment results in no significant difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with standard care. People receiving compulsory community treatment were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this type of legislation is introduced.

Procedural justice and the mental health court judge's role in reducing recidivism

Based on qualitative observation and quantitative data from eight mental health courts (MHCs), this article argues that observed reductions in recidivism from participation in MHC are caused in part by the role of the judge in conveying elements of procedural justice. Specifically, the judge provides: (1) a heightened level of interpersonal treatment of participants that accords them dignity, respect, and voice; (2) accountability for participants and service providers alike; and (3) transparency for decisions reached through an open negotiation process. Procedural justice theory predicts that participants will thereby be more likely to see legal decisions as legitimate and incorporate the court's values and goals as their own. Preliminary qualitative and quantitative data are presented from interviews of a sample of participants in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia's Mental Health Diversion Court (DCMHDC) that support these hypotheses. DCMHDC participants hold strongly positive views about the procedural justice they receive from their court experience and of the judge's role in providing justice.

Community treatment orders: the ethical balancing act in community mental health

Community treatment orders (CTOs) are legal mechanisms by which an individual with a mental illness and a history of non-compliance and potential for violence can be mandated (against their will) to undergo psychiatric treatment in an outpatient setting. Although CTOs are increasingly being adopted by governments as a means of protecting both mentally ill persons and society itself, their use continues to stimulate considerable debate. While there is some evidence of their potential benefits in promoting treatment compliance and reducing hospital stays, there is concern that they infringe on the mental health client's human rights and freedoms. Consideration of the ethical and practical implications of the use of CTOs must continue. In this paper, some of the most pressing issues are identified and discussed.

The mental health service crisis of neoliberalism -- an antipodean perspective

Major transformations in forms of governance of the liberal state have been wrought over the course of the last century, including the rise of neoliberalism and 'new public management.' Mental health too has witnessed change, with pharmacological treatment displacing residential care, a shift to community-based services, mainstreaming with general health care, and greater reliance on civil society institutions such as the family or markets. This article considers whether mental health law, and its court/tribunal 'gatekeepers' have kept pace with those changes. It argues that the focus of the liberal project needs to shift to measures which will better guarantee access to mental health services, and keep a more watchful eye on both 'hidden' coercion of people on community treatment orders, and passive neglect of human need.

Mental health legislation in the commonwealth

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Mental health law is changing in some common law jurisdictions. Questions are being asked about whether special legislation is still needed, whether it is a health or a legal issue, and how this part of the law relates to cognate laws about patient consent to healthcare and determinations about competence. The role of tribunal or court adjudication of the need for admission is also debated, along with the capacity of the law to harness resources or manage care. It is therefore timely to review these debates.

RECENT FINDINGS

Renewed support is evident in the literature for subsuming mental healthcare within the general laws governing consent to care or determinations of competence. Socio-legal and interdisciplinary research suggests that health perspectives are already quite dominant in mental health law, while involuntary detention may correlate poorly with levels of need. The mesh between the law and service systems remains problematic, and there is little evidence that law has yet developed a significant capacity for leveraging treatment resources.

SUMMARY

This review suggests that the priority for future research lies in exploring the factors which enhance treatment access and outcomes for the mentally ill rather than debating the shape or content of mental health law.