Intensive case management for psychotic patients with borderline intelligence. UK 700 Group

Screening for intellectual disabilities and borderline intelligence in Dutch outpatients with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

The reliability and validity of the Screener for Intelligence and Learning Disabilities (SCIL) are unknown in a population of outpatients with severe mental illness. The prevalence of mild or borderline intellectual disabilities (MBID); an umbrella term for people with borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) and mild intellectual disability (MID) in this population is also unknown.

METHODS

A total of 625 patients were screened with the SCIL, 201 of which also had IQ test results.

RESULTS

Cronbach's alpha of the SCIL was 0.73. The AUC value for detecting MBID was 0.81, and also 0.81 for detecting MID, with percentages of correctly classified subjects (when using the advised cut-off scores) being 73% and 79%, respectively. The SCIL results suggested that 40% of the patients were suspected of MBID and 20% of MID.

CONCLUSION

The SCIL seems to be an appropriate screening tool for MBID. It is important to screen for MBID because a substantial proportion of outpatients with severe mental illness appear to be functioning at this level. It is necessary to adapt treatment for these patients.

Assertive community treatment in UK practice

Since 2000 assertive outreach has been a requirement of community mental health provision in the UK. This has led to rapid proliferation of assertive community treatment teams offering a pure form of clinical case management to people with severe mental illness. The teams provide intensive support in obtaining material essentials such as food and shelter and place a greater emphasis on social functioning and quality of life than on symptoms. People with psychotic illness with fluctuating mental state and social functioning and poor medication adherence are most likely to benefit. Teams are ideally placed to monitor clozapine treatment in the community. Teams require a broad skills mix, and team members need some competence across a wide range of areas. Teams should include a psychiatrist or have regular access to one. Ideal individual case-loads are 10–12 patients. Around-the-clock availability is no longer considered essential, particularly in view of the rise of crisis resolution/home treatment teams.

Adults with learning disability admitted to psychiatric wards

People with learning disability have an increased risk of developing a mental disorder. When they need acute psychiatric hospitalisation, they are frequently admitted to general psychiatric beds under the care of general adult psychiatrists, many of whom have had little training in the assessment and treatment of mental illness in this group. They may have unusual presentations of common mental disorders leading to difficulty in diagnosis and idiosyncratic responses to treatment. Boundary disputes between general adult and learning disability services frequently lead to a reduced quality of care for people with complex needs (see Bernal & Hollins (1995) for an overview of psychiatric illness and learning disability). This paper will focus on the issues specific to the management of people with learning disability on general psychiatric wards, and is aimed at psychiatrists working in both general psychiatry and learning disability.

A Blind Spot? Screening for Mild Intellectual Disability and Borderline Intellectual Functioning in Admitted Psychiatric Patients: Prevalence and Associations with Coercive Measures

Background

Failure to detect psychiatric patients’ intellectual disabilities may lead to inappropriate treatment and greater use of coercive measures.

Aims

In this prospective dynamic cohort study we screened for intellectual disabilities in patients admitted to psychiatric wards, and investigated the use of coercive measures with these patients.

Methods

We used the Screener for Intelligence and Learning disabilities (SCIL) to screen patients admitted to two acute psychiatric wards, and assessed patient characteristics and coercive measures during their stay and over the last 5 years.

Results

Results on the SCIL suggested that 43.8% of the sample had Mild Intellectual Disability or Borderline Intellectual Functioning (MID/BIF). During their current stay and earlier stays in the previous 5 years, these patients had an increased risk of involuntary admission (OR 2.71; SD 1.28–5.70) and coercive measures (OR 3.95, SD 1.47–10.54).

Conclusions

This study suggests that functioning on the level of MID/BIF is very prevalent in admitted psychiatric patients and requires specific attention from mental health care staff.

Intensive case management for severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community-based package of care aiming to provide long-term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. Intensive Case Management evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (fewer than 20) and high-intensity input.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ICM as a means of caring for severely mentally ill people in the community in comparison with non-ICM (caseload greater than 20) and with standard community care. We did not distinguish between models of ICM. In addition, to assess whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation (mean number of days per month in hospital) is influenced by the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and by the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted (baseline level of hospital use).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last update search 10 April 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community care setting, where ICM is compared to non-ICM or standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses.We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect. We assessed overall quality for clinically important outcomes using the GRADE approach and investigated possible risk of bias within included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2016 update included two more studies (n = 196) and more publications with additional data for four already included studies. The updated review therefore includes 7524 participants from 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We found data relevant to two comparisons: ICM versus standard care, and ICM versus non-ICM. The majority of studies had a high risk of selective reporting. No studies provided data for relapse or important improvement in mental state.1. ICM versus standard careWhen ICM was compared with standard care for the outcome service use, ICM slightly reduced the number of days in hospital per month (n = 3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.34,low-quality evidence). Similarly, for the outcome global state, ICM reduced the number of people leaving the trial early (n = 1798, 13 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79, low-quality evidence). For the outcome adverse events, the evidence showed that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.51, low-quality evidence). In addition, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment due to very low-quality evidence (n = 1129, 4 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.0, very low-quality evidence).2. ICM versus non-ICMWhen ICM was compared with non-ICM for the outcome service use, there was moderate-quality evidence that ICM probably makes little or no difference in the average number of days in hospital per month (n = 2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21, moderate-quality evidence) or in the average number of admissions (n = 678, 1 RCT, MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.05, moderate-quality evidence) compared to non-ICM. Similarly, the results showed that ICM may reduce the number of participants leaving the intervention early (n = 1970, 7 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95,low-quality evidence) and that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1152, 3 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.84, low-quality evidence). Finally, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment as compared to non-ICM (n = 73, 1 RCT, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.74, very low-quality evidence).3. Fidelity to ACTWithin the meta-regression we found that i.) the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii.) the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but the 'baseline hospital use' result still significantly influences time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07, P = 0.0027).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low- to moderate-quality evidence, ICM is effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illness. Compared to standard care, ICM may reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. Intensive Case Management is at least valuable to people with severe mental illnesses in the subgroup of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about four days per month in past two years). Intensive Case Management models with high fidelity to the original team organisation of ACT model were more effective at reducing time in hospital.However, it is unclear what overall gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach.We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, however we currently know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care, and this should be undertaken.

What Is Case Management? A Scoping and Mapping Review

The description of case management in research and clinical practice is highly variable which impedes quality analysis, policy and planning. Case management makes a unique contribution towards the integration of health care, social services and other sector services and supports for people with complex health conditions. There are multiple components and variations of case management depending on the context and client population. This paper aims to scope and map case management in the literature to identify how case management is described in the literature for key complex health conditions (e.g., brain injury, diabetes, mental health, spinal cord injury). Following literature searches in multiple databases, grey literature and exclusion by health condition, community-based and adequate description, there were 661 potential papers for data extraction. Data from 79 papers (1988–2013) were analysed to the point of saturation (no new information) and mapped to the model, components and activities. The results included 22 definitions, five models, with 69 activities or tasks of case managers mapped to 17 key components (interventions). The results confirm the significant terminological variance in case management which produces role confusion, ambiguity and hinders comparability across different health conditions and contexts. There is an urgent need for an internationally agreed taxonomy for the coordination, navigation and management of care.

How should community mental health of intellectual disability services evolve?

Services for people with Intellectual Disability (ID) and coexisting mental health problems remain undeveloped; research into their effectiveness has been lacking. Three linked recent studies in the UK have provided evidence on essential service provision from staff, service users and carers. Interfaces with mainstream mental health services were seen as problematic: the area of crisis response was seen as a particular problem. Further services’ research is needed, focusing on service components rather than whole service configurations. There was not support for establishing more intensive mental health services for people with ID only. The way forward is in developing new ways of co-working with staff in “mainstream” mental health services. Mental health of ID staff might often be best situated directly within these services.

Psychiatrists' knowledge, training and attitudes regarding the care of individuals with intellectual disability

BACKGROUND

Psychiatrists are responsible for providing proper care for people with intellectual disability who have psychiatric disorders. This study examined psychiatrists' perceptions of their own training, knowledge and therapeutic skills, as well as their attitudes towards this population.

METHODS

Questionnaires were distributed to 679 psychiatrists working within the public sector in Israel.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires were returned from 256 psychiatrists (38% response rate). Most (90%) participants reported having had limited training in the diagnosis and treatment of people with intellectual disabilities, while between 34% and 72% reported having inadequate knowledge in specific areas.

CONCLUSION

The findings of limited training and self-perceived inadequate knowledge are at least partially explained by the service model, wherein people with intellectual disabilities are cared for by general mental health services. The identified inadequacies could be overcome through the implementation of a model in which specially trained psychiatrists are deployed within generic services.

The future of specialist community teams in the care of those with severe mental illness

Aims – Specialist interventions in community psychiatry for severe mental illness are expanding and their place needs to be re-examined. Methods – Recent literature is reviewed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of specialist teams. Results – Good community mental health services reduce drop out from care, prevent suicide and unnatural deaths, and reduce admission to hospital. Most of these features have been also demonstrated by assertive community outreach and crisis resolution teams when good community services are not available. In well established community services assertive community teams do not reduce admission but both practitioners and patients prefer this service to other approaches and it leads to better engagement. Crisis resolution teams appear to be more successful than assertive community teams in preventing admission to hospital, although head- to-head comparisons have not yet been made. All specialist teams have the potential of fragmenting services and thereby reducing continuity of care. Conclusions – The assets of improved engagement and greater satisfaction with assertive, crisis resolution and home treatment teams are clear from recent evidence, but to improve integration of services they are probably best incorporated into community mental health services rather than standing alone.

Declaration of Interest: The author has been the sole consultant in two assertive outreach teams since 1994 and might there- fore be expected to be in favour of this genre of service. He has received grants for evaluation of different services models from the Department of Health (UK) and the Medical Research Council (UK).

Intensive case management for severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community based package of care, aiming to provide long term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. ICM evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (less than 20) and high intensity input.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of Intensive Case Management (caseload <20) in comparison with non-Intensive Case Management (caseload > 20) and with standard community care in people with severe mental illness. To evaluate whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation depends on its fidelity to the ACT model and on the setting.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the current update of this review we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2009), which is compiled by systematic searches of major databases, hand searches and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community-care setting, where Intensive Case Management, non-Intensive Case Management or standard care were compared. Outcomes such as service use, adverse effects, global state, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs were sought.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes we calculated relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI). We employed a random-effects model for analyses.We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 trials (7328 participants) in this review. The trials provided data for two comparisons: 1. ICM versus standard care, 2. ICM versus non-ICM.1. ICM versus standard care Twenty-four trials provided data on length of hospitalisation, and results favoured Intensive Case Management (n=3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86 CI -1.37 to -0.34). There was a high level of heterogeneity, but this significance still remained when the outlier studies were excluded from the analysis (n=3143, 20 RCTs, MD -0.62 CI -1.00 to -0.23). Nine studies found participants in the ICM group were less likely to be lost to psychiatric services (n=1633, 9 RCTs, RR 0.43 CI 0.30 to 0.61, I²=49%, p=0.05).One global state scale did show an Improvement in global state for those receiving ICM, the GAF scale (n=818, 5 RCTs, MD 3.41 CI 1.66 to 5.16). Results for mental state as measured through various rating scales, however, were equivocal, with no compelling evidence that ICM was really any better than standard care in improving mental state. No differences in mortality between ICM and standard care groups occurred, either due to 'all causes' (n=1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.84 CI 0.48 to 1.47) or to 'suicide' (n=1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68 CI 0.31 to 1.51).Social functioning results varied, no differences were found in terms of contact with the legal system and with employment status, whereas significant improvement in accommodation status was found, as was the incidence of not living independently, which was lower in the ICM group (n=1185, 4 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.49 to 0.88).Quality of life data found no significant difference between groups, but data were weak. CSQ scores showed a greater participant satisfaction in the ICM group (n=423, 2 RCTs, MD 3.23 CI 2.31 to 4.14).2. ICM versus non-ICM The included studies failed to show a significant advantage of ICM in reducing the average length of hospitalisation (n=2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08 CI -0.37 to 0.21). They did find ICM to be more advantageous than non-ICM in reducing rate of lost to follow-up (n=2195, 9 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.52 to 0.99), although data showed a substantial level of heterogeneity (I²=59%, p=0.01). Overall, no significant differences were found in the effects of ICM compared to non-ICM for broad outcomes such as service use, mortality, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs.3. Fidelity to ACT Within the meta-regression we found that i. the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36 CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii. the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20 CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but 'baseline hospital use' result is still significantly influencing time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18 CI -0.29 to -0.07, p=0.0027).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ICM was found effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illnesses. Compared to standard care ICM was shown to reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. ICM is of value at least to people with severe mental illnesses who are in the sub-group of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about 4 days/month in past 2 years) and the intervention should be performed close to the original model.It is not clear, however, what gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach.We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, but currently we know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care and this should be undertaken.

Community services for people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will examine the most recently published studies of community services for people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a continuing lack of evidence regarding these community-based services. Few studies have been published at all whilst even fewer still have reported outcomes in any detail. Recent studies have attempted to evaluate assertive community treatment for this service user group; however, they have been unsuccessful owing to inconsistency about what an assertive community treatment service should be for people with intellectual disabilities.

SUMMARY

An evidence base is urgently needed for these community-based services. Research should utilize the opinions of service users and their carers as well as professionals and focus on those people with intellectual disabilities and more severe mental health problems. It may be more fruitful to examine the components of community-based services rather than use the terminology of specific models such as assertive community treatment. The service components considered to be essential need first to be identified using a systematic methodology and then evaluated using a broad range of outcomes.

Is processing speed predictive of functional outcome in psychosis?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the contribution of processing speed in the prediction of various domains of outcome in psychosis.

METHOD

Data were drawn from the UK700 Case Management Trial of 708 patients with chronic psychotic illness. Regression analyses were applied to investigate cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between processing speed at baseline and measures of service use, social outcome and subjective outcome, taking into account current psychopathology and adjusting for baseline values of the outcome measure.

RESULTS

Cross-sectionally, processing speed was associated with all three domains of outcome, although only associations in the social and subjective outcome domain remained significant after controlling for psychopathology and the effects differed between and within domains of outcome. Prospectively, only the subjective outcome measure of number of met and unmet needs (CAN) was weakly associated with baseline neurocognitive performance after adjustment for baseline needs. Other associations disappeared after adjustment for the baseline measure of outcome and/or baseline psychopathology.

CONCLUSION

The finding of weak cross-sectional associations in the absence of specific and unconfounded longitudinal associations suggests that processing speed is an independent dimension of disease severity rather than a causal factor impacting on social outcome. Nevertheless, longitudinal change in patient reported needs may be weakly sensitive to baseline cognitive impairment.

Systematic review of case management

The purpose of the present paper was to review the current state of evidence for types of case management, focusing on the last 10 years since publication of the Cochrane Systematic Reviews of case management and assertive community treatment. A literature review of electronic databases from 1995 to the present to identify recent research on psychiatric case management, both original studies and reviews, was carried out. Original articles were organized on basis of year of study, experimental group and outcome variables to determine patterns. Sixty relevant papers were located. Thirty-nine are reports of experimental trials of types of case management and 21 are reviews or discussion papers. The focus of research is on assertive community treatment or intensive case management, with only five papers on other forms of less intense case management. Numerous outcomes have been examined, of those examined often enough to draw meaningful conclusions only one, engagement with services, has been consistently positive. All other outcomes have produced mixed results. The strength of findings in favour of case management has weakened over time. A heterogeneous group of experimental designs limits comparisons. Numerous issues with methodology and definitions of types of case management have beset research in this field. Assertive types of case management (including assertive community treatment and intensive case management) are more effective than standard case management in reducing total number of days spent in hospital, improving engagement, compliance, independent living and patient satisfaction. More important than the type of service configuration is to understand the clinical criteria of the services provided and their effectiveness.

Analyzing the duration of recurrent events in clinical trials: a comparison of approaches using data from the UK700 trial of psychiatric case management

In studies of chronic disease the outcome measure may be based upon the duration of recurring illness. Our example is the UK700 trial of psychiatric case management, where the total number of days spent in hospital over a 2-year follow-up was the primary outcome. Investigations of treatment effect modifiers were undertaken using an analysis of that primary outcome, a comparison of length of hospitalizations, and also a multi-state modeling approach. The days in hospital outcome was relatively straightforward to analyze, and allowed the complete randomized treatment groups to be compared. In contrast, the comparison of length of hospitalizations included only hospitalized patients, with censored observations not being well accommodated. The multi-state model provided separate treatment effect estimates for admission and discharge, this being more informative about how any reduction in days spent in hospital is achieved. Estimation of the treatment effects through the use of proportional hazards regression allowed appropriate incorporation of censored observations. However, with the multi-state model approach treatment effect estimates are not based upon comparisons of complete randomized treatment groups, as individuals are removed from the risk set for admission whilst at risk for discharge, and vice versa. We conclude that total duration is an appropriate primary outcome for clinical trials, but that multi-state models deserve greater use as an informative secondary analysis.

Methods for incorporating covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis and between-centre differences into cost-effectiveness evaluations

BACKGROUND

Overall assessments of cost-effectiveness are now commonplace in informing medical policy decision making. It is often important, however, also to investigate how cost-effectiveness varies between patient subgroups. Yet such analyses are rarely undertaken, because appropriate methods have not been sufficiently developed.

METHODS

We propose a coherent set of Bayesian methods to extend cost-effectiveness analyses to adjust for baseline covariates, to investigate differences between subgroups, and to allow for differences between centres in a multicentre study using a hierarchical model. These methods consider costs and effects jointly, and allow for the typically skewed distribution of cost data. The results are presented as inferences on the cost-effectiveness plane, and as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

In applying these methods to a randomised trial of case management of psychotic patients, we show that overall cost-effectiveness can be affected by ignoring the skewness of cost data, but that it may be difficult to gain substantial precision by adjusting for baseline covariates. While analyses of overall cost-effectiveness can mask important subgroup differences, crude differences between centres may provide an unrealistic indication of the true differences between them.

CONCLUSIONS

The methods developed allow a flexible choice for the distributions used for cost data, and have a wide range of applicability--to both randomised trials and observational studies. Experience needs to be gained in applying these methods in practice, and using their results in decision making.

Intensive case management for severe psychotic illness: is there a general benefit for patients with complex needs? A secondary analysis of the UK700 trial data

The UK700 trial failed to demonstrate an overall benefit of intensive case management (ICM) in patients with severe psychotic illness. This does not discount a benefit for particular subgroups, and evidence of a benefit of ICM for patients of borderline intelligence has been presented. The aim of this study is to investigate whether this effect is part of a general benefit for patients with severe psychosis complicated by additional needs. In the UK700 trial patients with severe psychosis were randomly allocated to ICM or standard case management. For each patient group with complex needs the effect of ICM is compared with that in the rest of the study cohort. Outcome measures are days spent in psychiatric hospital and the admission and discharge rates. ICM may be of benefit to patients with severe psychosis complicated by borderline intelligence or depression, but may cause patients using illicit drugs to spend more time in hospital. There was no convincing evidence of an effect of ICM in a further seven patient groups. ICM is not of general benefit to patients with severe psychosis complicated by additional needs. The benefit of ICM for patients with borderline intelligence is an isolated effect which should be interpreted cautiously until further data are available.

An exploratory study of assertive community treatment for people with intellectual disability and psychiatric disorders: conceptual, clinical, and service issues

BACKGROUND

Assertive community treatment (ACT) has been applied to a number of disorders in the adult population, such as schizophrenia, with some degree of success; its use in the treatment of people with intellectual disability (ID) and mental illness has received little attention. Despite the high costs of ID in health and social care, there has been very little evidence-based practice for people with ID and mental illness, and it remains a neglected area of research. Aims The aims of this study were an exploratory comparison of the effectiveness of an ACT model for the treatment of mental illness in people with ID (ACT-ID) with a standard community treatment (SCT-ID) approach.

METHOD

A Randomized controlled trial design was adopted and allocation was made by stratified randomization by an independent statistician. The prognostic factors used in the randomization were gender and psychiatric diagnosis (psychosis vs. affective). Service users were randomly allocated to either ACT-ID or SCT-ID.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between ACT-ID and SCT-ID in terms of the level of unmet needs, carer burden, functioning and quality of life, but borderline evidence of a difference between treatment groups in quality of life in favour of SCT-ID. Both SCT-ID and ACT-ID groups decreased level of unmet needs and carer burden, and increased functioning. SCT-ID also led to a small increase in quality of life.

Randomized controlled trial of assertive community treatment in intellectual disability: the TACTILD study

BACKGROUND

There has been a policy shift away from hospital to community in the services of all those with psychiatric disorders, including those with intellectual disability (ID), in the last 50 years. This has been accompanied recently by the growth of assertive outreach services, but these have not been evaluated in ID services.

METHOD

In a randomized controlled trial we compared assertive outreach with 'standard' community care, using global assessment of function (GAF) as the primary outcome measure, and burden and quality of life as secondary measures.

RESULTS

We recruited 30 patients, considerably less than expected; no significant differences were found between the primary and secondary outcomes in the two groups. The differences were so small that a Type II error was unlikely.

CONCLUSIONS

Reasons for this lack of specific efficacy of the assertive approach are discussed and it is suggested that there is a blurring of the differences between standard and assertive approaches in practice.

Mental health services for adults with learning disabilities

Services for people with learning disabilities have been transformed since the late 1960s by the move from institutional to community care. (Learning disabilities is the term currently used in the UK in preference to mental retardation, developmental disabilities and mental handicap.) Important changes include the progress towards integration, participation, inclusion and choice for people with learning disabilities, which have occurred in the context of the broader civil and human rights movements. It is time to examine the services delivered to people with learning disabilities and comorbid psychiatric disorders (mental illness, personality disorders, behavioural problems with aggression) and the evidence for their effectiveness.

Assessing the value of assertive outreach. Qualitative study of process and outcome generation in the UK700 trial

BACKGROUND

It is unclear why intensive case management (ICM) failed to reduce hospitalisation in the UK700 trial.

AIMS

To investigate outcome generation in the UK700 trial.

METHOD

A qualitative investigation was undertaken in one UK700 centre.

RESULTS

Both intensive and standard case management practised individual casework, employed assertive outreach with comparable frequency, and performed similarly in the out-patient management of emergencies and in-patient discharge. However, ICM was advantaged in managing some non-compliance and undertaking casework that prevented psychiatric emergencies. Absence of team-based management and bureaucratised access to social care limited the impact of these differences on outcomes and the effective practice of assertive outreach, although this was relevant to only a sub-population of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of ICM was undermined by organisational factors. Sensitive anticipatory casework, which prevents psychiatric emergencies, may make ICM more effective than an exclusive focus on assertive outreach. Our findings demonstrate the value of qualitative research in evaluating complex interventions.

Difficulties in conducting a randomized controlled trial of health service interventions in intellectual disability: implications for evidence-based practice

BACKGROUND

In an era of evidence-based medicine, practice is constantly monitored for quality in accordance with the needs of clinical governance (Oyebode et al. 1999). This is likely to lead to a dramatic change in the treatment of those with intellectual disability (ID), in which evidence for effective intervention is limited for much that happens in ordinary practice. As Fraser (2000, p. 10) has commented, the word that best explains "the transformation of learning disability practice in the past 30 years is 'enlightenment'." This is not enough to satisfy the demands of evidence, and Fraser exhorted us to embrace more research-based practice in a subject that has previously escaped randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatment because of ethical concerns over capacity and consent, which constitute a denial of opportunity which "is now at last regarded as disenfranchising".

CONCLUSIONS

The present paper describes the difficulties encountered in setting up a RCT of a common intervention, i.e. assertive community treatment, and concludes that a fundamental change in attitudes to health service research in ID is needed if proper evaluation is to prosper.