Case management and assertive community treatment. What is the difference?

Health and Social Case Management for the Inclusion of People Living with a Schizophrenic Disorder: The PASSVers Experience

The way the social protection system in France is organized frequently leads to coordination difficulties between the social and healthcare sectors. A health and social program has been implemented in a French medical-psychological center to optimize the coherence of the pathway for people living with schizophrenia. This study evaluated the way users and professionals perceive this program so as to assess the relevance of double case management. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with users (N = 21) and professionals (N = 11) of this program and then analyzed with Alceste software. The results highlight the overall satisfaction of the participants with the program, and the double case management was shown to be beneficial in supporting people living with schizophrenia in their life project. These results indicate that this program enabled the emergence of a collective empowerment, which could assist with the recovery process of schizophrenia.

EPA guidance on the quality of mental health services

The main aim of this guidance of the European Psychiatric Association is to provide evidence-based recommendations on the quality of mental health services in Europe. The recommendations were derived from a systematic search of the best available evidence in the scientific literature, supplemented by information from documents retrieved upon reviewing the identified articles. While most recommendations could be based on empirical studies (although of varying quality), some had to be based on expert opinion alone, but were deemed necessary as well. Another limitation was that the wide variety of service models and service traditions for the mentally ill worldwide often made generalisations difficult. In spite of these limitations, we arrived at 30 recommendations covering structure, process and outcome quality both on a generic and a setting-specific level. Operationalisations for each recommendation with measures to be considered as denominators and numerators are given as well to suggest quality indicators for future benchmarking across European countries. Further pan-European research will need to show whether the implementation of this guidance will lead to improved quality of mental healthcare, and may help to develop useful country-specific cutoffs for the suggested quality indicators.

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.

Mental health service provision in low and middle-income countries: recent developments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The study discusses key issues and concepts of how to provide basic mental health services for people with mental disorders in low and middle-income countries (LAMICs).

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last years a considerable gap between mental healthcare needs and available services in LAMICs has been documented. The transformation of hospital-based to community-based mental health and the building of accessible services in low-resource settings require mental health training of primary care providers, task-sharing/task-shifting models, involvement of families and peers and basic models of community rehabilitation. Several international initiatives have been set up to increase the evidence base and test the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of these approaches which are not new but which have been implemented in only a small amount of LAMICs. A combination of interventions on different levels (governance, legislation, providers, and community) is necessary.

SUMMARY

It remains to be shown how the recent global mental health movement, beyond increasing international financial resources, will be helpful in finding locally and culturally sensitive solutions to reduce the mental health gap in LAMICs. Although concepts of a well designed mix of services are available, solutions to reduce implementation barriers must be local, and implementation strategies may vary considerably and still lack a sufficient evidence base.

Effectiveness of Assertive Community Management in Singapore

Introduction: Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) was introduced in the 1970s as a comprehensive and assertive approach to community-based case management of patients with chronic and serious mental illness. Launched in Singapore in 2003, the Assertive Community Management (ACM) was modelled after the ACT, but with the main difference of 24 hour availability for the latter only. In line with the move towards de-institutionalisation of psychiatric patients, ACM was introduced to provide a mobile community-based multidisciplinary team approach to manage patients with severe chronic psychiatric illness. This article aims to evaluate and provide an update on this service programme in Singapore following an earlier study by Fam Johnson in 2007. Materials and Methods: A naturalistic and retrospective study was conducted. One hundred and fifty-five patients recruited into ACM from 1 September 2008 to 1 September 2009 and had completed 1 year of ACM were included in our study. Outcomes were defined as number of admissions (NOA) and length of stay (LOS) one year before and one year following induction into the programme. Baseline socio-demographic factors were also investigated to see if they predicted outcome with ACM. Results: The mean NOA was 1.9 pre-ACM and 0.6 post-ACM, with mean reduction in NOA of 1.3 (P <0.01). The mean LOS was 72.2 days pre-ACM and 17.1 days post ACM, mean reduction in LOS 55.1 days (P <0.01). In addition, it was found that gender, diagnoses and ethnicity were not predictive of the outcome measures of NOA or LOS. Conclusion: ACM in Singapore had been well established since its inception and continued to show effectiveness in reducing inpatient hospitalisation among the chronically mentally ill. Key words: Assertive Community Treatment, Community Psychiatry, Length of stay, Number of admission, Global assessment of functioning

[New parameters in community treatment practices: the contribution of community and alternative mental health groups in Québec]

This article examines the origin and the context of the implementation project of community treatment according to the perspective of community and alternative mental health groups in Québec. The author presents results of a research on practices of these groups through a specific array that integrates the essential components of the community treatment model. The author examines six parameters characterizing devices, approaches and practices: 1) approach in supportive care and attention; 2) voluntary relation with the organization 3) the place of biomedical treatment; 4) flexibility in length and intensity of treatment; 5) the individual and collective dimension of supportive care; 6) and, participation as an active citizen.

A comparison of the implementation of assertive community treatment in Melbourne, Australia and London, England

AIMS

The efficacy of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) is well established in the USA, and to a lesser extent in Australia, whereas UK studies suggest little advantage for ACT over usual care. Implementation of ACT varies and these differences may explain variability in reported efficacy. We aimed to investigate differences in ACT implementation between Melbourne, Australia and London, UK.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional survey, we investigated team organisation, staff and client characteristics from four Melbourne ACT teams using almost identical methods to the Pan London Assertive Outreach studies of 24 ACT teams.

RESULTS

Client characteristics, staff satisfaction and burnout were very similar. Three of four Melbourne teams made over 70% of client contacts 'in vivo' compared to only one-third of comparable London teams, although all teams were rated as 'ACT-like'. Melbourne teams scored more highly on team approach. Three quarters of clients were admitted in the preceding 2 years but Melbourne clients had shorter stays.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in the implementation of 'active components' of home treatment models that have been associated with better client outcomes (home visiting, team approach) may explain international differences in ACT efficacy. Existing fidelity measures may not adequately weight these important elements of the model.

So what shall we do about assertive community treatment?

The usefulness of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) in European countries with well-developed community care systems has been disputed, despite considerable relevant literature. This paper aims to assess reasons for and against implementing ACT in such countries. ACT may not be useful where generic community mental health teams are not yet well-developed, where admission rates are already low, or where an alternative model based on close integration of a full range of types of care is in place. Good reasons for introducing ACT include listening to patients' preferences, being able to monitor a high risk group of patients more successfully, good staff satisfaction, and the potential for using ACT teams as a platform for delivering interventions for difficult to treat psychosis. The ACT model is more likely to thrive in future if a recovery orientation can be adopted.

Effectiveness of continuity-of-care programs to reduce time in hospital in persons with schizophrenia

AIMS

To assess the impact of the Continuity-of-Care Program (CCP; a clinical case management model) on hospital use of persons with schizophrenia in three Community Mental Health Services in Madrid (Spain).

METHODS

Using data provided by the Psychiatric Case Register, we analyzed the use of hospitalization in 250 individuals before and after the date of inclusion in this program.

RESULTS

During the first year after launching the program, there was a 40-69% reduction in the number of admissions, length of each hospital stay, proportion of admitted patients, total number of days in-hospital, proportion of patients visiting the emergency room, and emergency room visits. This drop was maintained over the subsequent 3 years of program functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

These results encourage the development and implementation of such programs, even though more studies evaluating the effectiveness of these programs for other endpoints are needed.

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.

Coordination in networks for improved mental health service

INTRODUCTION

Well-organised clinical cooperation between health and social services has been difficult to achieve in Sweden as in other countries. This paper presents an empirical study of a mental health coordination network in one area in Stockholm. The aim was to describe the development and nature of coordination within a mental health and social care consortium and to assess the impact on care processes and client outcomes.

METHOD

Data was gathered through interviews with 'joint coordinators' (n=6) from three rehabilitation units. The interviews focused on coordination activities aimed at supporting the clients' needs and investigated how the joint coordinators acted according to the consortium's holistic approach. Data on The Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN-S) showing clients' satisfaction was used to assess on set of outcomes (n=1262).

RESULTS

The findings revealed different coordination activities and factors both helping and hindering the network coordination activities. One helpful factor was the history of local and personal informal cooperation and shared responsibilities evident. Unclear roles and routines hindered cooperation.

CONCLUSIONS

This contribution is an empirical example and a model for organisations establishing structures for network coordination. One lesson for current policy about integrated health care is to adapt and implement joint coordinators where full structural integration is not possible. Another lesson, based on the idea of patient quality by coordinated care, is specifically to adapt the work of the local addiction treatment and preventive team (ATPT)-an independent special team in the psychiatric outpatient care that provides consultation and support to the units and serves psychotic clients with addictive problems.