The utility of extended outpatient civil commitment

The long-term adherence following the end of Community Treatment Order: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The community treatment order (CTO) is designed to deliver mental healthcare in the community and has been introduced in around 75 jurisdictions worldwide. It constitutes a legal obligation in which individuals with severe mental illness must adhere to out-of-hospital treatment plans. Despite intense criticism and the debated nature of published evidence, it has emerged as a clinical and policy response to frequent hospital readmissions and to enhance adherence in cases where there is refusal of pharmacological treatments. This systematic review outlines findings on CTO long-term adherence, after mandatory outpatient treatment has ended, in studies that include people with psychiatric disorders.

METHOD

Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a review of published articles from PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to January 15, 2023. We included studies that assessed adherence after CTO ends. The study is registered with PROSPERO number CRD42022360879.

RESULTS

Six independent studies analyzing the main indicators of long adherence: engagement with services and medication adherence, were included. The average methodological quality of the studies included is fair. Long-term adherence was assessed over a period ranging from 11 to 28 months. Only two studies reported a statistically significant improvement. Regarding the remaining studies, no positive correlation was observed, except for certain subgroup samples, while in one study, medication adherence decreased.

CONCLUSION

Scientific evidence supporting the hypothesis that CTO has a positive role on long-term adherence post-obligation is currently not sufficient. Given the importance of modern recovery-oriented approaches and the coercive nature of compulsory outpatient treatment, it is necessary that future studies ensure the role of CTO in effectively promoting adherence.

Need for Treatment, A Less Restrictive Alternative to Hospitalization, and Treatment Provision: The Utility of Community Treatment Orders

Background

Provision of involuntary care is an abridgment of civil rights and a source of controversy. Its circumstances require continued monitoring. This study asks 4 questions: Whether, in an era, focused on allowing patients with capacity to refuse community-treatment-order (CTO)-assignments, CTO use decreased. And whether CTOs fulfilled 3 statute mandates: Were CTO-assigned patients in greater need of treatment than other psychiatric inpatients? Was CTO assignment a less-restrictive alternative to psychiatric hospitalization? and Did CTO assignment provide needed treatment at internationally recommended levels with consequences for patient outcomes?

Method

All 214 388 Victoria, Australia mental health admissions between 2000- 2017 were reviewed. Two cohort samples were drawn and followed through 2019-ie, all 7826 hospitalized patients who were first placed on CTOs from 2010 to 2017 and 13 896 hospitalized patients without CTO placement. Logistic Regression was used to specify determinants of CTO assignment from the psychiatric inpatient population. OLS Regression with propensity score control to evaluate study questions.

Results

In the 2010-2017 decade, initial CTO assignments decreased by 3.5%, and initial hospitalizations increased by 5.9% compared to the 2000-2009 period. At hospital admission and discharge, based on Health of the Nations Score ratings, the CTO-cohort's need for treatment exceeded that of non-CTO patients. CTO patients had 3.75 fewer days in average inpatient episode duration than other inpatients, when adjusted for CTO-assignment determinants, the ratio of patients to community case managers, and patient housing status. CTO patients needing rehospitalization spent 112.68 more days in the community than re-hospitalized non-CTO patients. Patient to case-manager ratios falling above recommended levels and the patient marginal housing status contributed to longer hospital stays and reduced community tenure.

Conclusions

Victoria relied less on CTOs as an LRA, consequently, experiencing increased initial hospitalizations. CTO patients were in greater need of treatment than non-CTO patients, yet, with required oversite had shorter hospitalizations and more time out of hospital prior to rehospitalization than the less severely ill non-CTO group. Patient LRA outcomes were adversely affected by higher than recommended community patient to case-manager ratios limiting needed treatment provision to hospital.

Hospital Utilization Outcomes Following Assignment to Outpatient Commitment

Outpatient civil commitment (OCC) requires people with severe mental illness (SMI) to receive needed-treatment addressing imminent-threats to health and safety. When available, such treatment is required to be provided in the community as a less restrictive alternative (LRA) to psychiatric-hospitalization. Variance in hospital-utilization outcomes following OCC-assignment has been interpreted as OCC-failure. This review seeks to specify factors accounting for this outcome-variation and to determine whether OCC is used effectively. Twenty-five studies, sited in seven meta-analyses and subsequently published investigations, assessing post-OCC-assignment hospital utilization outcomes were reviewed. Studies were grouped by structural pre-determinants of hospital-utilization and OCC-implementation-i.e. deinstitutionalization (bed-availability), availability of a less restrictive alternative to hospitalization, and illness severity. Design quality at study completion was ranked on causal-certainty. In OCC-follow-up-studies, deinstitutionalization associated hospital-bed-cuts, when not taken into account, ensured lower hospital-bed-day utilization. OCC-assignment coupled with aggressive case-management was associated with reduced-hospitalization. With limited community-service, hospitalizations increased as the default option for providing needed-treatment. Follow-up studies showed less hospitalization while on OCC-assignment and more outside of it. Studies using fixed-follow-up periods usually found increased-utilization as patients spent less time under OCC-supervision than outside it. Comparison-group-studies reporting no between-group differences bring more severely ill OCC-patients to equivalent use as less disturbed patients, a success. Mean evidence-rank for causal-certainty 2.96, range 2-4, of 5 with no study ranked 1, the highest rank. Diverse mental health systems yield diverse OCC hospital-utilization outcomes, each fulfilling the law's legal mandate to provide needed-treatment protecting health and safety.

The utility of outpatient civil commitment: Investigating the evidence

BACKGROUND

Outpatient civil commitment (OCC), community treatment orders (CTOs) in European and Commonwealth nations, require the provision of needed-treatment to protect against imminent threats to health and safety. OCC-reviews aggregating all studies report inconsistent outcomes. This review, searches for consistency in OCC-outcomes by evaluating studies based on mental health system characteristics, measurement, and design principles.

METHODS

All previously reviewed OCC-studies and more recent investigations were grouped by their outcome-measures' relationship to OCC statute objectives. A study's evidence-quality ranking was assessed. Hospital and service-utilization outcomes were grouped by whether they represented treatment provision, patient outcome, or the conflation of both.

RESULTS

OCC-studies including direct health and safety outcomes found OCC associated with reduced mortality-risk, increased access to acute medical care, and reduced violence and victimization risks. Studies considering treatment-provision, found OCC associated with improved medication and service compliance. If coupled with assertive community treatment (ACT) or aggressive case management OCC was associated with enhanced ACT success in reducing hospitalization need. When outpatient-services were limited, OCC facilitated rapid return to hospital for needed-treatment and increased hospital utilization in the absence of a less restrictive alternative. OCC-studies measuring "total hospital days", "prevention of hospitalization", and "readmissions" report negative and/or no difference findings because they erroneously conflate their intervention (provision of needed treatment) and outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation finds replicated beneficial associations between OCC and direct measures of imminent harm indicating reductions in threats to health and safety. It also finds support for OCC as a less restrictive alternative to inpatient care.

Use of community treatment orders and their outcomes: an observational study

Background

Community treatment orders are widely used in England. It is unclear whether their use varies between patients, places and services, or if they are associated with better patient outcomes.

Objectives

To examine variation in the use of community treatment orders and their associations with patient outcomes and health-care costs.

Design

Secondary analysis using multilevel statistical modelling.

Setting

England, including 61 NHS mental health provider trusts.

Participants

A total of 69,832 patients eligible to be subject to a community treatment order.

Main outcome measures

Use of community treatment orders and time subject to community treatment order; re-admission and total time in hospital after the start of a community treatment order; and mortality.

Data sources

The primary data source was the Mental Health Services Data Set. Mental Health Services Data Set data were linked to mortality records and local area deprivation statistics for England.

Results

There was significant variation in community treatment order use between patients, provider trusts and local areas. Most variation arose from substantially different practice in a small number of providers. Community treatment order patients were more likely to be in the ‘severe psychotic’ care cluster grouping, male or black. There was also significant variation between service providers and local areas in the time patients remained on community treatment orders. Although slightly more community treatment order patients were re-admitted than non-community treatment order patients during the study period (36.9% vs. 35.6%), there was no significant difference in time to first re-admission (around 32 months on average for both). There was some evidence that the rate of re-admission differed between community treatment order and non-community treatment order patients according to care cluster grouping. Community treatment order patients spent 7.5 days longer, on average, in admission than non-community treatment order patients over the study period. This difference remained when other patient and local area characteristics were taken into account. There was no evidence of significant variation between service providers in the effect of community treatment order on total time in admission. Community treatment order patients were less likely to die than non-community treatment order patients, after taking account of other patient and local area characteristics (odds ratio 0.69, 95% credible interval 0.60 to 0.81).

Limitations

Confounding by indication and potential bias arising from missing data within the Mental Health Services Data Set. Data quality issues precluded inclusion of patients who were subject to community treatment orders more than once.

Conclusions

Community treatment order use varied between patients, provider trusts and local areas. Community treatment order use was not associated with shorter time to re-admission or reduced time in hospital to a statistically significant degree. We found no evidence that the effectiveness of community treatment orders varied to a significant degree between provider trusts, nor that community treatment orders were associated with reduced mental health treatment costs. Our findings support the view that community treatment orders in England are not effective in reducing future admissions or time spent in hospital. We provide preliminary evidence of an association between community treatment order use and reduced rate of death.

Future work

These findings need to be replicated among patients who are subject to community treatment order more than once. The association between community treatment order use and reduced mortality requires further investigation.

Study registration

The study was approved by the University of Warwick’s Biomedical and Scientific Research Ethics Committee (REGO-2015-1623).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Different Patient Group Responses To Community Treatment Orders Suggest Alternative Approaches

Community treatment orders (CTOs) help people with severe mental illness survive through potentially harmful crises posing imminent threats to health and safety by providing needed treatment when possible as a less restrictive alternative (LRA) to involuntary hospitalization. This review considers how differing patient subgroups have responded to differing CTO implementation approaches. Though recent trends have favored restricting psychiatric discretion, patients selected by psychiatrists as eligible for brief CTO assignment and assigned randomly to either brief or fixed-longer-term CTOs were no different in adverse outcomes other than in the duration of supervised time. Though emphasis has been on dangerousness to others, a study excluding such patients found lesser amounts of victimization among CTO-assigned vs. non-CTO patients. Though the trend has been focused on shortening CTO-duration, studies of extended six-month CTO assignment found that such patients experienced reduced inpatient days. Though emphasis has been on using CTOs with patients who have repeatedly failed in voluntary community care, studies of early intervention CTO use yielded positive results. Finally, CTO diversion has received limited use but when used had positive outcomes. Average evidence rankings for all subgroup study areas were 3.58 of 5 with 1 being the best rank. These studies, while low in evidence ranking, suggest alternative approaches may improve CTO-use outcomes for different patient subgroups.

Community treatment orders increase community care and delay readmission while in force: Results from a large population-based study

OBJECTIVE

There is debate about the effectiveness of community treatment orders in the management of people with a severe mental illness. While some case-control studies suggest community treatment orders reduce hospital readmissions, three randomised controlled trials find no effects. These randomised controlled trials measure outcomes over a longer period than the community treatment order duration and assess the combined effectiveness of community treatment orders both during and after the intervention. This study examines the effectiveness of community treatment orders in a large population-based sample, restricting observation to the period under a community treatment order.

METHODS

All persons ( n = 5548) receiving a community treatment order in New South Wales, Australia, over the period 2004-2009 were identified. Controls were matched using a propensity score based on demographic, clinical and prior care variables. A baseline period equal to each case's duration of treatment was constructed. Treatment effects were compared using zero-inflated negative binomial regression, adjusting for demographics, clinical characteristics and pre-community treatment order care.

RESULTS

Compared to matched controls, people on community treatment orders were less likely to be readmitted (odds ratio = 0.90, 95% confidence interval = [0.84, 0.97]) and had a significantly longer time to their first readmission (incidence rate ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval = [1.36, 1.58]), fewer hospital admissions (incidence rate ratio = 0.90, 95% confidence interval = [0.84, 0.96]) and more days of community care (incidence rate ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval = [1.51, 1.59]). Increased community care and delayed first admission were found for all durations of community treatment order care. Reduced odds of readmission were limited to people with 6 months or less of community treatment order care, and reduced number of admissions and days in hospital to people with prolonged (>24 months) community treatment order care.

CONCLUSION

In this large population-based study, community treatment orders increase community care and delay rehospitalisation while they are in operation. Some negative findings in this field may reflect the use of observation periods longer than the period of active intervention.

"This is not a Life Anyone would want"-A Qualitative Study of Norwegian ACT Service users' Experience with Mental Health Treatment

We discuss Norwegian service users' experiences with community mental health treatment in general, and the interprofessional Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) model in particular. To gain the right to treatment, service users have to accept certain limitations, such as medication and community treatment orders (CTOs). Seventy participants responded to five open-ended questions. In addition, eight of them participated in either focus group or interviews. A collaborative approach, using Stepwise-Deductive Induction (SDI) method was used to analyze the participants' experiences. The results showed that the treatment contributes to an experience of autonomy but also one of restriction. It provides service users with enhanced normalcy, but simultaneously a feeling of deviance. There needs to be an ongoing reflection and discussion about those paradoxes in treatment, and service users have to be involved.

The utility of outpatient commitment: acute medical care access and protecting health

OBJECTIVES

This study considers whether, in an easy access single-payer health care system, patients placed on outpatient commitment-community treatment orders (CTOs) in Victoria Australia-are more likely to access acute medical care addressing physical illness than voluntary patients with and without severe mental illness.

METHOD

For years 2000 to 2010, the study compared acute medical care access of 27,585  severely mentally ill psychiatrically hospitalized patients (11,424 with and 16,161 without CTO exposure) and 12,229 never psychiatrically hospitalized outpatients (individuals with less morbidity risk as they were not considered to have severe mental illness). Logistic regression was used to determine the influence of the CTO on the likelihood of receiving a diagnosis of physical illness requiring acute care.

RESULTS

Validating their shared and elevated morbidity risk, 53% of each hospitalized cohort accessed acute care compared to 32% of outpatients during the decade. While not under mental health system supervision, however, the likelihood that a CTO patient would receive a physical illness diagnosis was 31% lower than for non-CTO patients, and no different from lower morbidity-risk outpatients without severe mental illness. While, under mental health system supervision, the likelihood that CTO patients would receive a physical illness diagnosis was 40% greater than non-CTO patients and 5.02 times more likely than outpatients were. Each CTO episode was associated with a 4.6% increase in the likelihood of a member of the CTO group receiving a diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Mental health system involvement and CTO supervision appeared to facilitate access to physical health care in acute care settings for patients with severe mental illness, a group that has, in the past, been subject to excess morbidity and mortality.

The Utility of Outpatient Commitment: I. A Need for Treatment and a Least Restrictive Alternative to Psychiatric Hospitalization

OBJECTIVES

This study examined whether psychiatric patients assigned to community treatment orders (CTOs), outpatient commitment in Victoria, Australia, have a greater need for treatment to protect their health and safety than patients not assigned to CTOs. It also considered whether such treatment is provided in a least restrictive manner-that is, in a way that contributes to reduced use of psychiatric hospitalization.

METHODS

The sample included 11,424 patients first placed on a CTO between 2000 and 2010, and 16,161 patients not placed on a CTO. Need for treatment was independently assessed with the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) at hospital admission and at discharge. Ordinary least-squares and Poisson regressions were used to assess savings in hospital days attributable to CTO placement.

RESULTS

HoNOS ratings indicated that at admission and discharge, the CTO cohort's need for treatment exceeded that of the non-CTO cohort, particularly in areas indicating potential dangerous behavior. When analyses adjusted for the propensity to be selected into the CTO cohort and other factors, the mean duration of an inpatient episode was 4.6 days shorter for the CTO cohort than for the non-CTO cohort, and a reduction of 10.4 days per inpatient episode was attributable to each CTO placement.

CONCLUSIONS

CTO placement may have helped patients with a greater need for treatment to experience shorter hospital stays. Whether the CTO directly enabled the fulfillment of unsought but required treatment needs that protected patient health and safety is a question that needs to be addressed in future research.

Associations between compulsory community treatment and continuity of care in a three year follow-up of the Oxford Community Treatment Order Trial (OCTET) cohort

BACKGROUND

Most studies investigating the effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) use readmission to hospital as the primary outcome. Another aim of introducing CTOs was to improve continuity of care. Our study was a 3-year prospective follow-up which tested for associations between CTOs and continuity of care.

METHODS

Our study sample included 333 patients recruited to the Oxford Community Treatment Order Trial (OCTET). We collected data on continuity of care using eight previously operationalized measures. We analysed the association between CTOs and continuity of care in two ways. First, we tested the association between continuity of care and OCTET randomisation arm (CTO versus voluntary care via Section 17 leave). Second, we analysed continuity of care and CTO exposure independent of randomisation; using any exposure to CTO, number of days on CTO, and proportion of outpatient days on CTO as outcomes.

RESULTS

197 (61%) patients were made subject to CTO during the 36-month follow-up. Randomisation to CTO arm was significantly associated with having a higher proportion of clinical documents copied to the user but no other measures of continuity. Having a higher proportion of outpatient days on CTO (irrespective of randomisation) was associated with fewer 60 day breaks without community contact. A sensitivity analysis found that any exposure to CTO and a higher proportion of outpatient days on CTO were associated with fewer days between community mental health team contacts and 60 day breaks without contact.

CONCLUSION

We found some evidence of an association between CTO use and better engagement with the community team in terms of increased contact and fewer breaks in care. Those with CTO experience had a higher number of inpatient admissions which may have acted as a mediator of this association. We found limited evidence for an association between CTO use and other measures of continuity of care.

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.

Effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders: The International Evidence

OBJECTIVE

Community treatment orders (CTOs) exist in more than 75 jurisdictions worldwide. This review outlines findings from the international literature on CTO effectiveness.

METHOD

The article draws on 2 comprehensive systematic reviews of the literature published before 2013, then uses the same search terms to identify studies published between 2013 and 2015. The focus is on what the literature as a whole tells us about CTO effectiveness, with particular emphasis on the strength and weaknesses of different methodologies.

RESULTS

The results from more than 50 nonrandomized studies show mixed results. Some show benefits from CTOs while others show none on the most frequently reported outcomes of readmission, time in hospital, and community service use. Results from the 3 existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show no effect of CTOs on a wider range of outcome measures except that patients on CTOs are less likely than controls to be a victim of crime. Patients on CTOs are, however, likely to have their liberty restricted for significantly longer periods of time. Meta-analyses pooling patient data from RCTs and high quality nonrandomized studies also find no evidence of patient benefit, and systematic reviews come to the same conclusion.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence of patient benefit from current CTO outcome studies. This casts doubt over the usefulness and ethics of CTOs. To remove uncertainty, future research must be designed as RCTs.

Effect of increased compulsion on readmission to hospital or disengagement from community services for patients with psychosis: follow-up of a cohort from the OCTET trial

BACKGROUND

Community treatment orders (CTOs) have not been shown in randomised trials to reduce readmission to hospital in patients with psychosis, but these trials have been short (11-12 months). We previously investigated the effect of CTOs on readmission rates over 12 months in a randomised trial (OCTET). Here, we present follow-up data for a cohort of individuals recruited to our original trial to examine the long-term effect of CTOs on readmissions and the risk of patients disengaging from mental health services temporarily or enduringly.

METHODS

For OCTET, an open-label, parallel, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients aged 18-65 years involuntarily admitted to mental health hospitals in 32 trusts in England, with a diagnosis of psychosis and deemed suitable for CTOs by their clinicians. Between Nov 10, 2008, and Feb 22, 2011, we recruited and randomly assigned 336 eligible patients (1:1) to be discharged on either a CTO (n=167) or to voluntary status via Section 17 leave (control group; n=169). For the analysis presented in this report, we assessed data at 36 months for 330 of these patients. We tested rates of readmission to hospital, time to first readmission, number of readmissions, and duration of readmission in patients assigned to CTO versus those assigned to control, and in all patients with CTO experience at any time in the 36 months versus those without. We also tested whether duration of CTO affected readmission outcomes in patients with CTO experience. We examined discontinuation (≥60 days between clinical contacts) and disengagement from services (no clinical contact for ≥90 days with no return to contact) in the whole cohort. OCTET is registered with isrctn.com, number ISRCTN73110773.

FINDINGS

We obtained data for 330 patients in the relevant period between Nov 10, 2008 and Feb 22, 2014 (36 months after the last patient was randomly assigned to OCTET). We identified no difference between the randomised groups in the numbers of patients readmitted (100 [61%] of 165 CTOs vs 113 [68%] of 165 controls; relative risk 0·88 [95% CI 0·75-1·03]), number of readmissions (mean 2·4 readmissions [SD 1·91] vs 2·2 [1·43]; incident density ratio [IDR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·76-1·24]), duration of readmissions (median 117·5 days [IQR 63-303] vs 139·5 days [63·0-309·5]; IDR 0·84 [95% CI 0·51-1·38]), or time to first readmission (median 601·0 days [95% CI 387·0-777·0] vs 420·0 days [352·0-548·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·81 [95% CI 0·62-1·06]). The CTO experience group had significantly more readmissions than the group without (IDR 1·39 [95% CI 1·07-1·79]) and we noted no significant difference between groups in readmission rates, duration of readmission, or time to first readmission. We did not identify a linear relationship between readmission outcomes and duration of CTO. 19 (6%) patients disengaged from services (12 [7%] of 165 CTOs vs 7 [4%] of 165 controls). Longer duration of compulsion was associated with later disengagement (HR 0·946 [95% CI 0·90-0·99, p=0·023). 187 (57%) experienced no discontinuities, and we noted no significant difference between the CTO and control groups for time to disengagement or number of discontinuities. Levels of discontinuity were associated with compulsion (IDR 0·973 [95% CI 0·96-0·99, p<0·0001]. We identified no effect of baseline characteristics on the associations between compulsion and disengagement.

INTERPRETATION

We identified no evidence that increased compulsion leads to improved readmission outcomes or to disengagement from services in patients with psychosis over 36 months. The level of persisting clinical follow-up was much higher than expected, irrespective of CTO status, and could partly account for the absence of CTO effect. The findings from our 36-month follow-up support our original findings that CTOs do not provide patient benefits, and the continued high level of their use should be reviewed.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research.

CTOs: what is the state of the evidence?

PURPOSE

Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) require outpatients to adhere to treatment and permit rapid hospitalisation when necessary. They have become a clinical and policy solution to repeated hospital readmissions despite some strong opposition and the contested nature of published evidence. In this article, we appraise the current literature on CTOs from the viewpoint of Evidence-Based Medicine and discuss the way forward for using and researching CTOs.

RESULTS

Non-randomised outcome studies show conflicting results, but their lack of standardisation of methods and measures makes it difficult to draw conclusions. In contrast, all three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted concur in their findings that CTOs do not impact on hospital outcomes. No systematic review or meta-analysis has identified any clear clinical advantage to CTOs.

CONCLUSION

The evidence-base does not support the use of CTOs in their current form. Involuntary clinical interventions must conform to the highest standard of evidence-based care. To enable clinicians to take an evidence-based approach and to settle remaining uncertainties about the current evidence, high-quality RCTs should be designed and undertaken, using standardised outcome measures.

A systematic review of the effect of community treatment orders on service use

PURPOSE

The evidence regarding community treatment order effectiveness has been conflicting. This systematic review aims to bring up to date the review performed by Churchill and colleagues in 2005 by assessing and interpreting evidence of CTO effectiveness defined by admission rates, number of inpatient days, community service use, and medication adherence published since 2006.

METHOD

Databases were searched to obtain relevant studies published from January 2006 to March 2013.

RESULTS

18 studies including one randomised controlled trial were included. There remains lack of evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies that CTOs are associated with or affected by admission rates, number of inpatient days or community service use. The most recent and largest RCT is included in this review and found no significant impact on admission rate (RR = 1.0, 95% CI 0.75-1.33) or number of days in hospital (IR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.65-1.26). Results from the two largest longitudinal datasets included in this review do not concur. Studies using the New York dataset found that CTOs were associated with reduced admission rates and inpatient days, while studies using the Victoria dataset generally found that they were associated with increased admission rates and inpatient days.

CONCLUSION

There is now robust evidence in the literature that CTOs have no significant effects on hospitalisation and other service use outcomes. Non-randomised studies continue to report conflicting results. Distinguishing between CTO recall and revocation and different patterns of community contact is needed in future research to ensure differentiation between CTO process and outcome.

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.

Community treatment orders: current evidence and the implications

Community treatment orders (CTOs) have been widely introduced to address the problems faced by 'revolving door' patients. A number of case-control studies have been conducted but show conflicting results concerning the effectiveness of CTOs. The Oxford Community Treatment Order Evaluation Trial (OCTET) is the third randomised controlled trial (RCT) to show that CTOs do not reduce rates of readmission over 12 months, despite restricting patients' autonomy. This evidence gives pause for thought about current CTO practice. Further high-quality RCTs may settle the contentious debate about effectiveness.

Naturalistic outcomes of community treatment orders: antipsychotic long-acting injections versus oral medication

BACKGROUND

Community treatment orders (CTOs) are initiated to compel the patient in the community to take part in a management plan, of which medication is often a part. CTOs were introduced in 2008, in England and Wales. We evaluated naturalistic outcomes of CTOs, according to the antipsychotic formulation prescribed at CTO initiation.

METHODS

A cohort study with prospective consecutive sampling and 1-year follow-up was conducted in a large mental health trust in South London. Measures included: demographics, psychotropics and CTO outcomes. Comparison groups were long-acting injection (LAI) versus oral formulations only, for the primary outcomes of time to CTO cessation in days and time to first hospital admission in days, whilst the CTO remained active.

RESULTS

For the 188 included patients, the CTO ceased within 1 year, either due to revocation (22.3%), discharge (28.1%) or lapse (19.7%). The CTO was renewed at 6 months for 92 (48.9%) patients, and then 56 (29.8%) were renewed again at 12 months. The antipsychotic formulation at CTO initiation was more likely to be LAI (60.6%) than oral (39.4%). Time to CTO cessation was longer for LAI than oral (median 251 versus 182 days, p = 0.030). A total of 54 patients experienced at least one admission; there was no difference between groups by drug formulation (oral 28.4% versus LAI 28.9%, p = 0.933). The mean time to first admission was 147.1 days and did not differ by formulation.

CONCLUSIONS

CTO duration was longer for those prescribed an antipsychotic LAI at CTO initiation, although the time to first admission and number of admissions did not differ between groups. CTOs not only compel treatment, but bind services to the patient, resulting in more intensive follow up. Whether enhanced treatment, via oral or LAI and enabled by the CTO, translates into improved clinical outcomes is yet to be determined.

Revocation of Community Treatment Orders in a mental health service network

OBJECTIVE

Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) require patients to co-operate with involuntary treatment in the community or risk having their CTO revoked and being readmitted to hospital. CTOs are used frequently in Australia. Their revocation has been under-investigated but is important because of the significant impact this process has on patients, families/carers and service-providers. This paper reports on an investigation of CTO revocations in a Victorian area mental health service in the period 2008-2010.

METHOD

This was a mixed-methods study involving extraction of data from the Victorian statewide clinical database, a file audit and semi-structured group interviews with key stakeholders. Two different time periods were compared.

RESULTS

CTOs are commonly revoked within three months of discharge from the inpatient unit and multiple service-providers and family/carers have varying involvement that appears to depend on the timing of the referral to the Crisis Assessment and Treatment Team.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified opportunities for improving policy and practice, particularly in relation to reducing the amount of coercion experienced by people on CTOs and improving flexibility of service delivery.

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.

Civil commitment in the United States

This article reviews the academic literature on the psychiatric practice of civil commitment. It provides an overview of the history of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization in the United States-from the creation of the first asylum and the era of institutionalization to the movement of deinstitutionalization. The ethical conflict that the practice of involuntary hospitalization presents for providers, namely the conflict between the ethical duties of beneficence and respect for patient autonomy, is presented. The evolution of the United States commitment standards, from being based on a right to treatment for patients with mental illness to being based on dangerousness, as well as the implications that the changes in commitment criteria has had on patients and society, are discussed. Involuntary hospitalization of patient populations that present unique challenges for psychiatry (e.g., not guilty by reason of insanity acquittees, sex offenders, and individuals with eating disorders, substance use disorders, and personality disorders) is discussed. Finally, an overview of outpatient commitment is provided. By reading this article, one will learn the history of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization in the United States and gain an understanding of the ethical issues that make civil commitment one of the most controversial practices in modern psychiatry.

Community treatment orders: beyond hospital utilization rates examining the association of community treatment orders with community engagement and supportive housing

The purpose of this paper is to examine the association of community treatment orders (CTO) with community engagement and housing arrangements for one population of psychiatric patients in Ontario, Canada. Socio demographic characteristics and health service utilization information were collected for each patient placed on a CTO during a 3 year period. Information was collected for each of the 84 patients when a CTO was first issued and then updated to reflect both the patient's ongoing involvement with the legislation and related clinical outcomes. A significant increase in the number of community services and a shift to supportive housing arrangements was found for patients following issuance of a CTO.

Conditional release in Western Australia: effect on hospital length of stay

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to determine whether the introduction of community treatment orders, which allow for conditional release from a psychiatric hospital, reduced inpatient episode durations in Western Australia by providing an alternative to extended inpatient stays.

METHODS

The design compared 129 persons given community treatment orders and 117 matched control patients without such orders-all of whom were hospitalized during the same period both before and after the introduction of the community treatment order law that allows for conditional release. A multivariate analysis of covariance was used to evaluate the impact of community treatment orders on change in inpatient episode duration.

RESULTS

The model showed a significant effect on inpatient episode duration (R(2)=.23, adjusted R(2)=.17, N=243, F=3.99, df=17 and 226, p<.001), indicating that community treatment orders (after taking all control factors into account) enabled a 19.16-day reduction per episode of inpatient care (t=2.13, df=1, p=.034) for persons given conditional release. Community-initiated treatment orders intended to prevent hospitalization, yet failing to do so, were associated with increased duration of subsequent hospitalizations (35.18 days; t=-3.36, df=1, p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Community treatment orders can be a useful tool for some but not necessarily all objectives. In the form of conditional release, orders reduce the likelihood of extended hospital stays. As a means to prevent hospitalization, the utility of community treatment orders is more complex, being dependent on services provided and on the judicious selection of persons for these orders.

Case registers in psychiatry: do they still have a role for research and service monitoring?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To follow up on reviews of case register research. Literature searches over a 2-year period were conducted to determine whether psychiatric case registers still have a role for research and service monitoring.

RECENT FINDINGS

Case register research covers a wide range of topics, and is most often found in Denmark where national databases support all kinds of record linkage studies. Typically, case registers are used in studies of treated prevalence and incidence of psychiatric disorders, in research on patterns of care, as sampling frames in epidemiological studies, and in studies on risk factors and treatment outcome.

SUMMARY

Despite a wide range of research based on administrative data, stakeholders in most countries are probably not well served by current priorities. Few studies investigate longitudinal patterns of service use to evaluate healthcare policies. There is a lack of comparative record linkage studies to inform local authorities on the cooperation between mental healthcare and public services. Implementing standard tools and procedures for routine outcome assessment seems still to be in an early phase in most register areas. When case register staff can capitalize on new opportunities, old and new case registers will continue to be important for research and service monitoring.