Use of community treatment orders to prevent psychiatric hospitalization

A systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors and outcomes of community treatment orders in Australia and New Zealand

OBJECTIVES

Australia and New Zealand have some of the highest rates of compulsory community treatment order use worldwide. There are also concerns that people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds may have higher rates of community treatment orders. We therefore assessed the health service, clinical and psychosocial outcomes of compulsory community treatment and explored if culturally and linguistically diverse, indigenous status or other factors predicted community treatment orders.

METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to January 2020: PubMed/Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We included any study conducted in Australia or New Zealand that compared people on community treatment orders for severe mental illness with controls receiving voluntary psychiatric treatment. Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessing study quality using Joanna Briggs Institute scales.

RESULTS

A total of 31 publications from 12 studies met inclusion criteria, of which 24 publications could be included in a meta-analysis. Only one was from New Zealand. People who were male, single and not engaged in work, study or home duties were significantly more likely to be subject to a community treatment order. In addition, those from a culturally and linguistically diverse or migrant background were nearly 40% more likely to be on an order. Indigenous status was not associated with community treatment order use in Australia and there were no New Zealand data. Community treatment orders did not reduce readmission rates or bed-days at 12-month follow-up. There was evidence of increased benefit in the longer-term but only after a minimum of 2 years of use. Finally, people on community treatment orders had a lower mortality rate, possibly related to increased community contacts.

CONCLUSION

People from culturally and linguistically diverse or migrant backgrounds are more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. However, the evidence for effectiveness remains inconclusive and limited to orders of at least 2 years' duration. The restrictive nature of community treatment orders may not be outweighed by the inconclusive evidence for beneficial outcomes.

Community Treatment Order Outcomes in Quebec: A Unique Jurisdiction

OBJECTIVE

We study compulsory community treatment orders (CTOs) for patients with severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI). Focusing on a unique jurisdiction in Canada that allows for long duration CTOs with strict enforcement procedures, our objectives are to determine whether extended duration CTOs are effective and to determine whether associated hospitalization costs are reduced.

METHOD

A mirror image, naturalistic design was employed using patients as their own controls to enhance external validity. No inclusive or exclusive criteria were employed for the 367 SPMI clinic patients who were studied over a 5-year period. Detailed documentation of the dates of all CTOs, long-acting antipsychotic injections (LAIs), emergency visits, hospitalizations, duration of hospitalizations, crimes and/or police involvement were collected. To study the relation between CTO and injection adherence, we use a mixed-effect linear regression model. To study the effect of injection adherence and hospitalization, we use survival analysis via Kaplan-Meier and Cox survival models.

RESULTS

CTO and non-CTO patients did not differ with respect to demographics, but CTO patients were significantly more severely ill. Following a CTO, adherence to LAIs increased over time (P < 0.001). The average time the patients spent in the community, that is, outside the hospital, was significantly longer under a CTO, and the duration of hospitalizations was decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

LAI adherence and outpatient office visits were enhanced by extended duration CTOs, as was time out of the hospital. The shorter duration of hospital stays implies cost savings. These must be weighed against their undesirable coercive nature.

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.

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 in Western Switzerland: A retrospective epidemiological study

PURPOSE

Community treatment orders (CTOs) are legal procedures that authorise compulsory community mental health care to people affected by severe mental disorders. Nowadays, CTOs are regulated in 75 countries, with important variations in terms of legal criteria and practices. In Switzerland CTOs were introduced on the 1^st January 2013, following the amendment of the Swiss Civil Code. The aim of this study was to provide a first understanding of the use of CTOs in Western Switzerland in terms of incidence and prevalence rates, population profile, orders duration and reasons for discharge.

METHODS

Incidence and prevalence rates of CTOs between 2013 and 2017 were estimated. Survival analysis was used to investigate time to CTO discharge and associated factors. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with CTOs' success as reason for discharge.

RESULTS

CTOs' incidence rates per 100'000 inhabitants ranged between 4.8 for 2013 and 9.6 for 2017, while their prevalence raised from 4.8 to 19.5. People placed under CTO were mainly male, in their forties, of Swiss origin, single and living independently. Primarily affected by Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders (F20-F29), they frequently presented substance use problems, and severe danger for themselves. CTOs were mainly ordered by the guardianship authority as a form of conditional release. The estimated mean time to discharge was almost three years. Not being of Swiss origin and being prescribed to take a medication were associated with longer CTO while living in hospital, as a consequence of a long-lasting hospitalisation, and having a non-medical professional in charge of the order were associated with shorter time to discharge. Neither clinical factors nor legal criteria predicted time to discharge. Moreover, spending more days under CTO increased the likelihood of success at discharge, whereas not being of Swiss origin reduced it.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the CTOs' implementation in Switzerland. CTOs prevalence increased rapidly despite the lack of evidence on positive outcomes. Our results suggested that once under CTO, it takes a long time for a patient to be released, in case of both positive and negative outcomes.

The use of outpatient commitment in Norway: Who are the patients and what does it involve?

PURPOSE

Despite one of the longest histories of using Outpatient Commitment (OC), little is known about the use in the Norwegian context. Reporting from the Norwegian Outpatient Commitment Study, this article aims to: establish the profile of the OC population in Norway; ascertain the legal justification for the use of OC and what OC involves for patients; investigate possible associations between selected patient and service characteristics and duration of OC, and; explore potential differences based on gender or rurality.

METHODS

A retrospective multi-site study, extracting data from the medical records of all patients on OC in six large regional hospitals in 2008-12, with detailed investigation over 36 months of the subsample of patients on first ever OC-order in 2008-09. We use descriptive statistics to establish the profile of the OC population and the legal justification for and the content of OC, and logistic regression to examine factors associated with duration of OC over 36 months.

RESULTS

1414 patients were on OC over the 5 years, and 274 had their first OC in 2008-09. The sample included more men than woman, and three-quarters were diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had long service histories, including involuntary admissions. The legal justification for all OC-orders was the need for treatment, and 18% were additionally justified by dangerousness. The option to initiate OC directly from the community was not used in any of the 274 first ever OC-orders. While 98% of patients were prescribed psychotropic medication, under half had an Involuntary Treatment Order, which under the Norwegian OC regime is required in addition to the OC-order to oblige patients to accept treatment (usually medication). 60% of patients had ≥2 clinical contacts monthly. There were some gender differences in descriptive analyses with men generally being worse off, but no clear pattern in terms of rurality. Patients in the sample had been on OC between one week and 20 years. The median duration of OC over 36 months was 365 days. Three factors contributed to longer duration: the use of the dangerousness criterion; a diagnosis of schizophrenia disorder, and; considerable problems with substance abuse.

CONCLUSION

The characteristics of the OC population in Norway are very similar to that reported in other jurisdictions. Medication seems to be the central focus of OC, yet additional Involuntary Treatment Orders are imposed for less than half of patients. While all OC-orders were justified by the need to ensure treatment, risk seems to be a concern for a subgroup of patients who are kept on for longer. How the 2017 amendment to the mental health act, which precludes compulsion for competent patients unless danger is present, will affect OC use, remains to be seen. Further studies should specifically focus on variation in the use of OC, including at the level of individual clinicians.

Overview of post-discharge predictors for psychiatric re-hospitalisations: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

High levels of hospital readmission (rehospitalisation rates) is widely used as indicator of a poor quality of care. This is sometimes also referred to as recidivism or heavy utilization. Previous studies have examined a number of factors likely to influence readmission, although a systematic review of research on post-discharge factors and readmissions has not been conducted so far. The main objective of this review was to identify frequently reported post-discharge factors and their effects on readmission rates.

METHODS

Studies on the association between post-discharge variables and readmission after an index discharge with a main psychiatric diagnosis were searched in the bibliographic databases Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, ProQuest Health Management, OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Relevant articles published between January 1990 and June 2014 were included. A systematic approach was used to extract and organize in categories the information about post-discharge factors associated with readmission rates.

RESULTS

Of the 760 articles identified by the initial search, 80 were selected for this review which included a total number of 59 different predictors of psychiatric readmission. Subsequently these were grouped into four categories: 1) individual vulnerability factors, 2) aftercare related factors, 3) community care and service responsiveness, and 4) contextual factors and social support. Individual factors were addressed in 58 papers and were found to be significant in 37 of these, aftercare factors were significant in 30 out of the 45 papers, community care and social support factors were significant in 21 out of 31 papers addressing these while contextual factors and social support were significant in all seven papers which studied them.

CONCLUSIONS

This review represents a first attempt at providing an overview of post-discharge factors previously studied in association with readmission. Hence, by mapping out the current research in the area, it highlights the gaps in research and it provides guidance future studies in the area.

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.

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.

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.

The impact of mental health nursing education on undergraduate nursing students' attitudes to consumer participation

Consumer participation in all aspects of mental health service delivery, including the education of mental health professionals, is now a policy expectation in Australia. Whether education programs introducing nurses to mental health nursing lead to more favourable attitudes towards consumer participation is yet to be examined in pre-registration nursing programs in Australia. The current evaluation examined changes in scores for the Consumer Participation Survey for undergraduate nursing students (n = 68) in an Australian University. Data were analysed, using repeated measures t-test, to compare the pre- and post-test scores. There was a significant improvement in views on consumers participating as staff members. There were no statistically significant changes in attitudes towards consumer capacity and consumer involvement in care processes. Consumer participation in mental health care is now clearly articulated in Australian Government policy. For this to be successfully implemented a more comprehensive understanding of the ability of education to influence attitudes is required.

Compulsory treatment in psychiatry

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Compulsory treatment is a common, yet controversial, practice in psychiatry. This paper reviews recent studies on the use of compulsory measures in hospital, the community and special populations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Researchers continue to examine the rates and patterns of involuntary hospitalization. However, they have extended their investigations to care in the community, acknowledging it as the primary locus of treatment for most patients. Research shows that the implementation of community mental health legislation presents complex clinical and practical issues that require further investigation. Recognition that compulsory treatment is an objective event which is subjectively experienced by patients, families and clinicians has led to research investigating stakeholder views. The therapeutic relationship has been found to be an important modifier of the experience of compulsory treatment. Recent studies have also focused on specific coercive practices, such as forced medication and seclusion, and the use of these in patient subgroups, including those with eating disorders and adolescents. The debate about whether compulsory treatment is ethical continues in the literature.

SUMMARY

Compulsory treatment in psychiatry remains an ethically and clinically contentious issue. As ethical concerns are generally countered by the argument that compulsory measures can lead to beneficial clinical outcomes, further empirical investigation in this area is required.

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.