Factors in the selection of patients for conditional release from their first 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.

The utility of outpatient civil commitment: Investigating the evidence

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Design

Secondary analysis using multilevel statistical modelling.

Setting

England, including 61 NHS mental health provider trusts.

Participants

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

Main outcome measures

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

Data sources

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

Results

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

Limitations

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

Conclusions

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

Future work

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

Study registration

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

Funding

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

Different Patient Group Responses To Community Treatment Orders Suggest Alternative Approaches

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Offense Characteristics of Incompetent to Stand Trial Defendants Charged With Violent Offenses

The current study compared offender and offense characteristics of pretrial defendants found incompetent to stand trial (IST) against those described as general offenders by victims in the 2008 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey and evaluated factors that differentiated IST defendants who allegedly used weapons from those who did not during the course of a violent offense. IST defendants were older and used "weapons" more frequently than those reported in the BJS survey; however, other characteristics, including use of firearms, did not differ. No demographic, clinical, or legal factors differentiated pretrial defendants who used weapons from those who did not. Overall, pretrial defendants were frequently diagnosed with a comorbid substance use disorder, and were homeless, unemployed, and had an extensive history of psychiatric hospitalizations and prior arrests at the time of their alleged offenses. Such results indicate that models for comprehensive discharge planning may have utility in addressing the unique needs of this subgroup of mentally disordered offenders. The findings also raise questions about the federal and state prohibition of gun rights to all IST defendants.

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.

An eleven-year evaluation of the effect of community treatment orders on changes in mental health service use

Many studies of compulsory community treatment have assessed their effect early on after the implementation of legislation. Although compulsory community treatment may not prevent readmission to hospital, there is evidence of an effect on length of stay before and after the intervention when compared to controls. This paper examines whether outcomes change as clinicians gain experience in the use of community treatment orders (CTOs). Cases and controls from three linked Western Australian databases were matched on age, sex, diagnosis and time of hospital discharge or community placement. We compared changes in bed-days and outpatient visits of CTO cases and controls using multivariate analyses to further control for confounders. We identified 2958 CTO cases and controls from November 1997 to December 2008 (total n = 5916). The average age was 37 years and 64% were male. Schizophrenia and other non-affective psychoses were the commonest diagnoses (73%). CTO placement was associated with a mean decrease of 5 bed-days from before the order when compared to controls (B = -5.23, s.e. = 1.60, t = -3.26, p < 0.001). There was an increase of 8 days in outpatient contacts (B = 8.31, s.e. = 1.17, t = 7.11, p < 0.001). There was little change in CTO use and outcomes over the 11 years. Compared to controls, CTOs may therefore reduce lengths of stay from before placement on the order. They also increase outpatient contacts. This study illustrates the importance of selecting an outcome that directly addresses the objective of the intervention.

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.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Does compulsory or supervised community treatment reduce 'revolving door' care? Legislation is inconsistent with recent evidence

Supervised community treatment to address 'revolving door' care is part of the new Mental Health Act in England and Wales. Two recent epidemiological studies in Australia (n>118 000), as well as a systematic review of all previous literature using appropriately matched or randomised controls (n=1108), suggest that it is unlikely to help.