Do intensive services obviate the need for CTOs?

Use of compulsory community treatment in mental healthcare: An integrative review of stakeholders' opinions

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have examined the effects of compulsory community treatment (CCT), amongst them there were three randomized controlled trials (RCT). Overall, they do not find that CCT affects clinical outcomes or reduces the number or duration of hospital admissions more than voluntary care does. Despite these negative findings, in many countries CCT is still used. One of the reasons may be that stakeholders favor a mental health system including CCT.

AIM

This integrative review investigated the opinions of stakeholders (patients, significant others, mental health workers, and policy makers) about the use of CCT.

METHODS

We performed an integrative review; to include all qualitative and quantitative manuscripts on the views of patients, significant others, clinicians and policy makers regarding the use of CCT, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley), and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

We found 142 studies investigating the opinion of stakeholders (patients, significant others, and mental health workers) of which 55 were included. Of these 55 studies, 29 included opinions of patients, 14 included significant others, and 31 included mental health care workers. We found no studies that included policy makers. The majority in two of the three stakeholder groups (relatives and mental health workers) seemed to support a system that used CCT. Patients were more hesitant, but they generally preferred CCT over admission. All stakeholder groups expressed ambivalence. Their opinions did not differ clearly between those who did and did not have experience with CCT. Advantages mentioned most regarded accessibility of care and a way to remain in contact with patients, especially during times of crisis or deterioration. The most mentioned disadvantage by all stakeholder groups was that CCT restricted autonomy and was coercive. Other disadvantages mentioned were that CCT was stigmatizing and that it focused too much on medication.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholders had mixed opinions regarding CCT. While a majority seemed to support the use of CCT, they also had concerns, especially regarding the restrictions CCT imposed on patients' freedom and autonomy, stigmatization, and the focus on medication.

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.

Nurses' perspectives on human rights when coercion is used in psychiatry: a systematic review protocol of qualitative evidence

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization describes the perpetuation of human rights violations against people with mental health problems as a global emergency. Despite this observation, recent studies suggest that coercive measures, such as seclusion, restraints, involuntary hospitalization, or involuntary treatment, are steadily or increasingly being used without proof of their effectiveness. In nursing, several literature reviews have focused on understanding nurses' perspectives on the use of seclusion and restraints. Although many studies describe the ethical dilemmas faced by nurses in this context, to this date, their perspectives on patient's rights when a broad variety of coercive measures are used are not well understood. The aim of this review is to produce a qualitative synthesis of how human rights are actually integrated into psychiatric and mental health nursing practice in the context of coercive work.

METHODS

Noblit and Hare's meta-ethnographic approach will be used to conduct this systematic review. The search will be conducted in CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Scopus databases, using the PICo model (Population, phenomenon of Interest, Context) and a combination of keywords and descriptors. It will be complemented by a manual search of non-indexed articles, gray literature, and other applicable data sources, such as human rights related documents. Qualitative and mixed-method study designs will be included in this review. Empirical and peer-reviewed articles published between 2008 and 2019 will be selected. Articles will be evaluated independently by two reviewers to determine their inclusion against eligibility criteria. The quality of the selected papers will then be independently evaluated by two reviewers, using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Checklist for Qualitative Research. Data extraction and content analysis will focus on first- and second-order constructs, that is, the extraction of research participants' narratives and their interpretation.

DISCUSSION

This review will provide a synthesis of how psychiatric and mental health nurses integrate human rights principles into their practice, as well as it will identify research gaps in this area. The results of this review will then provide qualitative evidence to better understand how nurses can contribute to the recognition, protection, and advocate for human rights in a psychiatric context.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42019116862.

Community Treatment Orders and Other Forms of Mandatory Outpatient Treatment

This position paper has been substantially revised by the Canadian Psychiatric Association's Professional Standards and Practice Committee and approved for republication by the CPA's Board of Directors on July 26, 2018. The original position paper¹ was first approved by the Board of Directors on January 25, 2003. It was subsequently reviewed and approved for republication with minor revisions on June 2, 2009.

Update on Assisted Outpatient Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) is an outpatient court-ordered treatment for people with severe mental illness (SMI) whose care needs are often unmet in the community due, in part, to treatment non-adherence. AOT is controversial, and the goal of this review is to provide an update on recent research, the status of AOT in the United States, and future directions for research and implementation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several recent studies have demonstrated that it is not just a lack of access to appropriately intensive care that prevents some individuals with SMI from engaging in and benefiting from treatment and that AOT can improve engagement and patient outcomes over and above the provision of care. The future of AOT in the United States is still somewhat uncertain and will largely depend on the effectiveness and sustainability of the SAMHSA AOT grant programs. Future research efforts should investigate the conditions under which and for whom AOT can be most effective, to help avoid poor outcomes for this vulnerable population.

"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.

Are Randomized Control Trials the Best Method to Assess the Effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders?

Many jurisdictions have enacted community treatment order (CTO) legislation that requires a person, who suffers from a severe mental disorder, to follow a treatment plan when living in the community. CTOs have been a source of debate because of controversies on whether evidence of effectiveness should only be considered from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs are considered the "gold standard" method to evaluate effectiveness of simple therapeutic interventions such as medication, but they are problematic for evaluation of complex interventions because valid attribution of causation in complex interventions is not guaranteed with RCTs. CTOs are complex interventions that require the interaction of many individuals and organizations to achieve their effects and effectiveness research must measure these complexities of delivery and outcomes. This paper examines conceptual, methodological and analytical challenges of CTO research within the context of RCTs and other research designs. It also discusses the current state of knowledge on effectiveness of CTOs. Finally, we suggest a way forward by presenting alternative causal inference approaches and potential models for evaluation complex interventions, such as CTOs. We propose that these approaches should be used alongside other research designs in a nuanced approach that may involve using findings from initial studies to refine the intervention and/or its implementation.

A systematic review of the views and experiences of subjects of community treatment orders

OBJECTIVE

CTOS have been the subject of many qualitative and quantitative research studies. Both research approaches add value to our understanding of CTOs. Qualitative studies provide an understanding of CTOs and the experience of being on a CTO that quantitative studies cannot provide. Many qualitative studies that have examined the views of subjects of CTOs have been published. However, authors of these studies continue to note that views and experiences of the subjects of these orders are not well known. This paper provides the results of a systematic review of qualitative studies focused on understanding the experiences of individuals who have been the subjects of CTOs.

METHOD

Relevant databases and grey literature were searched. To be included, a study had to have used a qualitative methodology for data collection and analysis, and focus on examining stakeholder perspectives on the lived experience of CTOs.

RESULTS

After a rigorous review of the abstracts, we identified 22 papers that met the criteria. These papers were analysed in detail in order to examine the existence of common themes. The 22 papers represented the views of 581 participants from 7 countries around the world. Ten themes were found to be common among the research findings of the 22 papers. Three themes in particular were highlighted: feelings of coercion and control, medication seen as the main reason for a CTO and that the perception of CTOs as a safety net. Findings also highlight the ambivalence that subjects of CTOs experience, the importance of the therapeutic relationship for successful engagement of the subject of the CTO and the complex role of coercion.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We have made a number of recommendations about how clinicians might use the views of the subjects of CTOs achieve a more positive experience of a CTO.

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.