Why are community treatment orders controversial?

Control in the community: A qualitative analysis of the experience of persons on conditional discharge in Hong Kong

Mandatory outpatient treatment schemes such as community treatment orders remain controversial despite being commonly used around the world. Given concerns about patient autonomy and civil liberties, such schemes need to be closely scrutinised. Though Hong Kong's mandatory outpatient treatment scheme, the conditional discharge (CD) regime, has a number of significant legal concerns, empirical research on how it operates on the ground remains limited, and data on the subjective experience of relevant stakeholders is limited to healthcare professionals. This two-part cross-sectional study, the first on the service user perspective in Hong Kong, rectifies this gap. Data was collected through a self-reported survey and semi-structured interviews. Results demonstrated that, while similar themes to those in the literature were raised, such as powerlessness, a lack of understanding about the regime and in particular their rights thereunder, concerns about restrictive aspects of the regime and poor attitudes of healthcare professionals, and in some cases positive sentiments about beneficial aspects, the Hong Kong experience differs in the significant extent to which many of these concerns are demonstrated. The insights which this data provides in relation to how the implementation of the CD regime can be improved prior to legal reform is discussed, and suggestions for the way forward are proposed.

Risk versus recovery: Care planning with individuals on community treatment orders

Community treatment orders (CTOs) require individuals with a mental illness to accept treatment from mental health services. CTO legislation in South Australia states that treatment and care should be recovery-focused, although justification for use is predominantly risk-based, and care often coercive. Although CTOs are contested, individuals, families, and clinicians frequently engage in care planning within this context. This paper examines how the concepts of risk and risk management impact care planning from the perspectives of individuals on CTOs, their families, and clinicians. Ethnographic methods of observation and interview provided a detailed account of the perspectives of each group over an 18-month period from two community mental health teams in South Australia. Findings show that care planning occurred within a culture of practice dominated by risk. Risk, however, was understood differently by each participant group, with the dominant narrative informed by biogenetic understandings of mental illness. This dominance impacted on the positioning of participant groups in care planning, focus of care contacts, and care options available. To improve care experiences and outcomes for individuals on CTOs, narrow conceptualizations of risk and recovery need to broaden to include an understanding of personal and social adversities individuals face. A broader understanding should reposition participants in the care planning context and rebalance care discussions, from a focus on clinical recovery to recovering citizenship.

Experiences with legally mandated treatment in patients with schizophrenia: A systematic review of qualitative studies

Background:

Patients with severe mental illness, including schizophrenia, may be legally mandated to undergo psychiatric treatment. Patients’ experiences in these situations are not well characterized. This systematic review of qualitative studies aims to describe the experiences of patients with schizophrenia and related disorders who have undergone legally mandated treatment.

Methods:

Four bibliographic databases were searched: CINAHL Plus (1981–2019), EMBASE (1947–2019), MEDLINE (1946–2019), and PsycINFO (1806–2019). These databases were searched for keywords, text words, and medical subject headings related to schizophrenia, legally mandated treatment and patient experience. The reference lists of included studies and systematic reviews were also investigated. The identified titles and abstracts were reviewed for study inclusion. A thematic analysis was completed for the synthesis of positive and negative aspects of legally mandated treatment.

Results:

A total of 4,008 citations were identified. Eighteen studies were included in the final synthesis. For the thematic analysis, results were collated under two broad themes; positive patient experiences and negative patient experiences. Patients were satisfied when their autonomy was respected, and dissatisfied when it was not. Patients often retrospectively recognized that their treatment was beneficial. Furthermore, negative aspects of the treatment included deficits in communication and a lack of information.

Conclusions:

Intervention research has historically focused on clinical outcomes and the quantitative aspects of treatment. Thus, this study provides insight into the qualitative aspects of patients’ experiences with legally mandated treatment. Recognizing these opinions and experiences can lead to better attitudes toward treatment for patients with schizophrenia and related psychiatric illnesses.

Involuntary hospitalization among young people with early psychosis: A population-based study using health administrative data

OBJECTIVE

Early psychosis is an important window for establishing long-term trajectories. Involuntary hospitalization during this period may impact subsequent service engagement in people with newly diagnosed psychotic disorder. However, population-based studies of involuntary hospitalization in early psychosis are lacking. We sought to estimate the proportion of people aged 16 to 35 years with early psychosis in Ontario who are hospitalized involuntarily at first admission, and to identify the associated risk factors and outcomes.

METHODS

Using linked population-based health administrative data, we identified incident cases of non-affective psychosis over a five-year period (2009-2013) and followed cases for two years to ascertain the first psychiatric hospitalization. We used modified Poisson regression to model sociodemographic, clinical, and service-related risk factors, and compared service-related outcomes for cases admitted on an involuntary versus voluntary basis.

RESULTS

Among 17,725 incident cases of non-affective psychosis, 38% were hospitalized within two years, and 81% of these admissions occurred on an involuntary basis (26% of cohort). Sociodemographic factors associated with an increased risk of involuntary admission included younger age (16-20), and first-generation migrant status. The strongest risk factors were poor illness insight, recent police involvement, and admission to a general (versus psychiatric) hospital. Outcomes associated with involuntary admission included increased likelihood of control intervention use and a shorter length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

One in four young people with first-episode psychosis will have an involuntary admission early in the course of their illness. Our findings highlight areas for intervention to improve pathways to care for people with psychotic disorder.

Correlates of offense recidivism in patients with schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

Schizophrenia increases the risk of offending. Recidivism rates are significant. Literature doesn't provide recidivism risk factors specific to patients with schizophrenia independently of the offenses' types.

OBJECTIVE

Identifying recidivism risk factors in schizophrenia patients independently of the offenses' types.

METHODS

We conducted a case-control study. All included patients were admitted, at least once, to the forensic psychiatry unit in Razi Hospital between January 1st, 1985 and December 31st, 2014 after a decision of irresponsibility by reason of insanity. All those who reoffended during this period were considered as cases. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify recidivism risk factors.

RESULTS

We included 25 cases and 38 controls. Eight recidivism risk factors were identified. Living in poor urban neighborhoods (P = 0.023; OR = 4.86), having been unemployed (P = 0.042; OR = 2.18) and not having lived with the family (P = 0.039; OR = 1.36) after discharge were considered as risk factors. The same applied to alcohol (P = 0.026; OR = 4.89) and cannabis use disorders (P = 0.018; OR = 6.01). A hospitalization shorter than 6 months multiplied the risk by 1.79 (P = 0.046). A combination of conventional antipsychotics (P = 0.023; OR = 4.81) and a poor adherence to treatment (P = 0.001; OR = 10.42) were considered as recidivism risk factors too.

CONCLUSIONS

All eight recidivism risk factors are dynamic. This makes recidivism prevention conceivable. Measures involving the patient, the health care system, patients' families, society and the government should be undertaken.

Misrepresenting community treatment orders

OBJECTIVES

To explore a contradiction between evidence suggesting community treatment order (CTO) ineffectiveness and clinical experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature pertaining to CTOs actually provides an evidence base for both positions. The headline that three randomised controlled trials and subsequent meta-analyses fail to demonstrate significant differences between groups reflects selection bias. A case may still be made for CTOs.

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

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

Associations between compulsory community treatment and continuity of care in a three year follow-up of the Oxford Community Treatment Order Trial (OCTET) cohort

BACKGROUND

Most studies investigating the effectiveness of Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) use readmission to hospital as the primary outcome. Another aim of introducing CTOs was to improve continuity of care. Our study was a 3-year prospective follow-up which tested for associations between CTOs and continuity of care.

METHODS

Our study sample included 333 patients recruited to the Oxford Community Treatment Order Trial (OCTET). We collected data on continuity of care using eight previously operationalized measures. We analysed the association between CTOs and continuity of care in two ways. First, we tested the association between continuity of care and OCTET randomisation arm (CTO versus voluntary care via Section 17 leave). Second, we analysed continuity of care and CTO exposure independent of randomisation; using any exposure to CTO, number of days on CTO, and proportion of outpatient days on CTO as outcomes.

RESULTS

197 (61%) patients were made subject to CTO during the 36-month follow-up. Randomisation to CTO arm was significantly associated with having a higher proportion of clinical documents copied to the user but no other measures of continuity. Having a higher proportion of outpatient days on CTO (irrespective of randomisation) was associated with fewer 60 day breaks without community contact. A sensitivity analysis found that any exposure to CTO and a higher proportion of outpatient days on CTO were associated with fewer days between community mental health team contacts and 60 day breaks without contact.

CONCLUSION

We found some evidence of an association between CTO use and better engagement with the community team in terms of increased contact and fewer breaks in care. Those with CTO experience had a higher number of inpatient admissions which may have acted as a mediator of this association. We found limited evidence for an association between CTO use and other measures of continuity of care.

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.

Coercion in mental health: a trial of the effectiveness of community treatment orders and an investigation of informal coercion in community mental health care

Background

Coercion comprisesformal coercionorcompulsion[treatment under a section of the Mental Health Act (MHA)] andinformal coercion(a range of treatment pressures, includingleverage). Community compulsion was introduced in England and Wales as community treatment orders (CTOs) in 2008, despite equivocal evidence of effectiveness. Little is known about the nature and operation of informal coercion.

Design

The programme comprised three studies, with associated substudies: Oxford Community Treatment Order Evaluation Trial (OCTET) – a study of CTOs comprising a randomised controlled trial comparing treatment on CTO to voluntary treatment via Section 17 Leave (leave of absence during treatment under section of the MHA), with 12-month follow-up, an economic evaluation, a qualitative study, an ethical analysis, the development of a new measure of capabilities and a detailed legal analysis of the trial design; OCTET Follow-up Study – a follow-up at 36 months; and Use of Leverage Tools to Improve Adherence in community Mental Health care (ULTIMA) – a study of informal coercion comprising a quantitative cross-sectional study of leverage, a qualitative study of patient and professional perceptions, and an ethical analysis.

Participants

Participants in the OCTET Study were 336 patients with psychosis diagnoses, currently admitted involuntarily and considered for ongoing community treatment under supervision. Participants in the ULTIMA Study were 417 patients from Assertive Outreach Teams, Community Mental Health Teams and substance misuse services.

Outcomes

The OCTET Trial primary outcome was psychiatric readmission. Other outcomes included measures of hospitalisation, a range of clinical and social measures, and a newly developed measure of capabilities – the Oxford Capabilities Questionnaire – Mental Health. For the follow-up study, the primary outcome was the level of disengagement during the 36 months.

Results

Community treatment order use did not reduce the rate of readmission [(59 (36%) of 166 patients in the CTO group vs. 60 (36%) of 167 patients in the non-CTO group; adjusted relative risk 1.0 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.33)] or any other outcome. There were no differences for any subgroups. There was no evidence that it might be cost-effective. Qualitative work suggested that CTOs’ (perceived) focus on medication adherence may influence how they are experienced. No general ethical justification was found for the use of a CTO regime. At 36-month follow-up, only 19 patients (6% of 329 patients) were no longer in regular contact with services. Longer duration of compulsion was associated with longer time to disengagement (p = 0.023) and fewer periods of discontinuity (p < 0.001). There was no difference in readmission outcomes over 36 months. Patients with longer CTO duration spent fewer nights in hospital. One-third (35%) of the ULTIMA sample reported lifetime experiences of leverage, lower than in the USA (51%), but patterns of leverage experience were similar. Reporting leverage made little difference to patients’ perceived coercion. Patients’ experiences of pressure were wide-ranging and pervasive, and perceived to come from family, friends and themselves, as well as professionals. Professionals were committed to patient-centred approaches, but felt obliged to assert authority when patients relapsed. We propose a five-step framework for determining the ethical status of offers by mental health professionals and give detailed guidance for professionals about how to exercise leverage.

Conclusions

Community Treatment Orders do not deliver clinical or social functioning benefits for patients. In the absence of further trials, moves should be made to restrict or stop their use. Informal coercion is widespread and takes different forms.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73110773.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Community treatment orders: exploring the paradox of personalisation under compulsion

The introduction of supervised community treatment, delivered through community treatment orders (CTOs) in England and Wales, contrasts with the policy of personalisation, which aims to provide service users autonomy and choice over services. This article draws upon findings from a primarily qualitative study which included 72 semi-structured interviews (conducted between January and December 2012) with practitioners, service users and nearest relatives situated within a particular NHS Trust. The article also refers to a follow-on study in which 30 Approved Mental Health Practitioners were interviewed. The studies aimed to develop a better understanding of how compulsory powers are being used in the community, within a policy context that emphasises personalisation and person-centred care in service delivery. Findings from the interview data (which were analysed thematically) suggest that service users were often inadequately informed about the CTO and their legal rights. Furthermore, they tended to be offered little, or no, opportunity to make choices and have involvement in the making of the CTO and setting of conditions. Retrospectively, however, restrictions were often felt beneficial to recovery, and service users reported greater involvement in decisions at review stage. Areas of good practice are identified through which person-centred care can be better incorporated into the making of CTOs.

Perceptions Among Psychiatric Staff of Creating a Therapeutic Alliance With Patients on Community Treatment Orders

A therapeutic alliance with a continuing collaboration between a patient and psychiatric staff is a resource for helping patients cope with the demands of coercive legislation. Knowledge exists describing coercion in inpatient care while the knowledge regarding the perceptions of creating a therapeutic alliance with patients on Community Treatment Orders (CTO) among psychiatric staff is scarce. To describe perceptions among psychiatric staff of creating a therapeutic alliance with patients on CTOs, an exploratory design using a phenomenographic method was employed. Thirteen semi-structured audio-taped interviews were conducted with psychiatric staff responsible for patients on CTOs. The staff worked in five different outpatient clinics and the interviews were conducted at their workplaces. The analysis resulted in in four metaphors: the persevering psychiatric staff, the learning psychiatric staff, the participating psychiatric staff, and the motivating psychiatric staff. Patients on CTOs were more time-consuming for psychiatric staff in care and treatment. Long-term planning is required in which the creation of a therapeutic alliance entails the patient gradually gaining greater self-awareness and wanting to visit the outpatient clinic. The professional-patient relationship is essential and if a therapeutic alliance is not created, the patient's continued care and treatment in the community is vulnerable.

Do intensive services obviate the need for CTOs?

OBJECTIVE

Opponents of community treatment orders (CTOs) argue that they would be unnecessary if sufficient community services such as assertive community treatment (ACT) teams were available. This study was designed to determine the frequency of CTO use for patients on ACT teams; reasons why patients receiving ACT services are placed on CTOs; and views of stakeholders on use of CTOs on ACT teams.

METHODS

We identified all patients on a CTO while being served by ACT teams in London, Ontario, between 2000 and 2013. Data were collected using chart review, questionnaires completed by psychiatrists and focus groups for patients, their relatives and non-psychiatrist clinicians.

RESULTS

During the study period, 190 patients were on a CTO while receiving ACT services. In December 2013, 17% of London's ACT team patients had an active CTO. ACT alone had been tried for 57% of patients before a CTO was introduced. Psychiatrists cited refusal of treatment and unavailability for follow-up as the primary reasons why ACT alone was ineffective. Patients were ambivalent about CTOs: describing them as coercive while simultaneously noting benefits. Relatives and non-psychiatrist clinicians were more clearly positive about the use of CTOs.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of intensive services does not ensure that patients will engage with those services.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Community legislation requiring some patients to adhere to treatment is needed in addition to intensive clinical services.

LIMITATIONS

This study conducted in a single location may not generalize to other regions. Many patients were not approached to participate in the focus groups which call into question the representativeness of patient opinions.

Community treatment orders in New Zealand: regional variability and international comparisons

OBJECTIVES

Community treatment orders (CTOs) have been used in New Zealand since 1992 and are now used in most Commonwealth countries. There is little research on the rate of use of CTOs in New Zealand. This study compares the prevalence of CTO use across New Zealand's 20 health districts and makes comparisons with international prevalence rates.

METHODS

New Zealand Ministry of Health reports provided data on rates of CTO use in New Zealand between 2005 and 2011. International rates were obtained from published reports and academic literature on CTO use.

RESULTS

Rates of CTO use in New Zealand show marked and persistent regional variation over the period of data collection. National average rates increased from 58 per 100,000 in 2005 to 84 per 100,000 in 2011. Rates of use of CTOs are increasing internationally. New Zealand's CTO use is high by international comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

New Zealand's high and increasing rate of CTO use by international standards raises questions about the delivery and functioning of mental health services, and about mental health service users' experience of mental health care. The high rate of CTO use needs to be addressed as a human rights issue as well as a clinical issue.

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.

Effectiveness of the Community Treatment Order in streamlining psychiatric services

BACKGROUND

The implementation of the Community Treatment Order (CTO) has created controversy surrounding its beneficence.

AIMS

The study aims at examining the effectiveness of the CTO in reducing the rate and duration of revolving door admissions for patients who were made subject to this Order.

METHOD

All patients who were made subject to CTO between November 2008 and August 2009 in South Essex were involved in the study where patients acted as their own control through comparing their pre-CTO, during CTO and post-CTO's admission rate and duration.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction in the rate and duration of admissions in the period during and post-CTO state.

CONCLUSIONS

The CTO proved to be effective in reducing revolving door admissions and it has a beneficial carryover effect in the post-CTO state.

Liberty or dignity: community treatment orders and rights

The use of community treatment orders (CTOs) remains controversial despite their widespread use in a number of different countries. The focus of a CTO should be on individuals with severe and enduring mental disorders, typically requiring adherence with recommended outpatient treatment in the community and requiring that they allow access to members of the clinical team for the purpose of assessment. There is no current provision for CTOs under Irish mental health legislation, although patients who are involuntarily detained under the MHA 2001 (Ireland) can be granted approved leave from hospital. This provision allows for the patient to be managed in the community setting, though, while technically on leave, they remain as inpatients detained under the MHA 2001 (Ireland). This article describes the use of CTOs and considerations relating to their implementation. There is discussion of the ethical grounds and evidence base for their use. Ethical considerations such as balancing autonomy against health needs and the utilisation of capacity principles need to be weighed by clinicians considering the use of CTOs. Though qualitative research provides some support for the use of CTOs, there remains a clear lack of robust evidence based findings to support their use in terms of hospitalisation rates, duration of illness remission and improved social functioning.

How research ethics' protections can contribute to public policy: the case of community treatment orders

Though community treatment orders (CTOs) were first used in 1986 in Australia, debate about their clinical and ethical merits continues even today. For some, the benefits of reduced frequency and duration of involuntary hospitalizations are believed to adequately outweigh the harms of restricted liberties in community living. For others, however, such benefits are believed to be achievable by simply arranging integrated, devoted community resources sans any threat of forced re-hospitalization. In response to this enduring controversy, this article examines the ethical merits of community orders using a novel approach. "Novel" because the examination is based on research ethics and its foundational principles. When hospital and community clinicians, family members, consumer/survivors, and advocacy groups discussed the idea of amending Ontario's mental health legislation to permit CTOs in the late 1990s, evidence of their effects and efficacy was very limited. Moreover, an order was characterized much like standard pharmacological or medical therapies because the person or an appropriate substitute decision maker's consent was necessary to authorize the order or make it valid. These two factors prompted this retrospective analysis: if CTOs--as a public policy initiative--had been treated like most other promising therapies, would any different ethics-related concerns have been raised that, in turn, would have benefited the public debate and the legislature's decisions? In other words, if respected safeguards that apply to new drugs and medical devices had applied to CTOs, would anything have changed?

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.

Coercion and compulsion in community mental health care

There is ongoing debate in the UK as to the place of coercion and compulsion in community mental health care. Recent changes in service provision and amendments to the Mental Health Act in England and Wales have increased the scope for compulsion in the community. This has intensified the debate revealing fault lines in the psychiatric and legal professions. Despite powerful arguments from all sides there is little empirical evidence to inform this debate at a clinical or a theoretical level. This review utilizes evidence from articles in peer reviewed journals. Papers were identified from electronic databases, the authors' databases of relevant literature and personal correspondence with experts in the field. The evidence base is relatively small but is expanding. It has been demonstrated that informal coercion is common in USA mental health services and can be experienced negatively by patients. There is evidence that powers of compulsion in community mental health care are used frequently when available and their availability is generally seen as positive by clinicians when practice becomes embedded. The evidence for the effectiveness of compulsion in community mental health care is patchy and conflicting, with randomized or other trials failing to show significant benefits overall even if secondary analyses may suggest positive outcomes in some subgroups. There are widespread regional and international differences in the use of community compulsion. Research examining treatment pressures (or 'leverage') and the subjective patient experience of them appears to be expanding and is increasing our awareness and understanding of these complex issues. There is an urgent need for evidence regarding the usefulness and acceptability of compulsion in the community now that powers have been made available. Trials of the effectiveness of compulsion are needed as is qualitative work examining the experiences of those involved in the use of such orders. These are needed to help clinicians utilize the powers available to them in an informed and judicious fashion and to ensure adequate training.

Community treatment orders: beyond hospital utilization rates examining the association of community treatment orders with community engagement and supportive housing

The purpose of this paper is to examine the association of community treatment orders (CTO) with community engagement and housing arrangements for one population of psychiatric patients in Ontario, Canada. Socio demographic characteristics and health service utilization information were collected for each patient placed on a CTO during a 3 year period. Information was collected for each of the 84 patients when a CTO was first issued and then updated to reflect both the patient's ongoing involvement with the legislation and related clinical outcomes. A significant increase in the number of community services and a shift to supportive housing arrangements was found for patients following issuance of a CTO.

Psychological models of mental disorder, human rights, and compulsory mental health care in the community

Recent amendments to the 1983 Mental Health Act in the UK (Mental Health Act 2007) include the controversial provision for: "supervised treatment in the community for suitable patients following an initial period of detention and treatment in hospital". This provision is widespread, and more formal, in other English-speaking jurisdictions. Reviews of the international literature, human rights considerations and the perspective of psychological approaches to mental health care suggest that proposed 'supervised community treatment orders' are valuable, lawful, and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights if certain specific conditions are met. Provisions for 'supervised community treatment orders' in the UK should be supported, but with the provisos that: the powers of the Mental Health Act are limited as in Scotland, to persons whose "ability to make decisions about the provision of [care] is significantly impaired", that each order is time-limited and subject to review by a properly constituted Tribunal, and that the use of such orders should represent a benefit to people in terms of more appropriate treatment, or be a least restrictive alternative, or better preserve the person's private and family life.

Dilemmas for clinicians in use of Community Treatment Orders

Clinicians who treat patients using Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) face many potential dilemmas in their relations with involuntary outpatients and the exercise of their powers. We compare the dilemmas identified in the literature with those reported by responsible clinicians in New Zealand (NZ). These clinicians experienced a number of well-known dilemmas, such as determining the right moment for a person's discharge from a CTO, but they seemed less troubled by some other difficulties than might be expected, usually because they considered involuntary outpatient treatment the best option for the patient or the best way to manage the risks involved. Further dilemmas were identified by the NZ clinicians that have not been widely discussed, concerning the proper scope of clinical authority over patients under CTOs and the decision to revoke involuntary outpatient status. In conclusion, some suggestions are made as to how clinicians might best manage the dilemmas involved.

PLC or TLC: is outpatient commitment the/an answer?

The lively debate over mandated community treatment in general and outpatient commitment laws (OPC) in particular has raised many issues. At its core, the debate is over how and to what extent laws should be formulated to persuade, leverage or coerce (PLC) persons with severe mental illness living in the community to comply with medications that mental health professionals believe they need. The alternative to PLC is what we call TLC (tender loving care): a strategy of using benefits - improved patient-centered treatment, entitlements and service delivery, including assertive outreach - rather than penalties or conditions on access to services, to induce compliance. We examine three aspects of the debate: (1) the empirical case for the need for OPC court orders to maintain revolving-door severely mentally ill persons in the community; (2) the normative argument over whether such orders constitute coercion, and, if so, whether that coercion is justifiable; and (3) the incentives such orders create to leverage community providers to augment resources and tailor treatment and services to entice patients to become willing participants in the management of their disorders.

A qualitative analysis of the use of community treatment orders in Saskatchewan

This study examined the opinions of patients who have been placed on a community treatment order (CTO), their relatives, mental health clinicians and representatives of community agencies about the use of CTOs in Saskatchewan. Patients were assessed using indepth interviews, while their relatives, mental health professionals and representatives of community agencies took part in facilitated focus groups. Patients had contradictory feelings about CTOs. Most experienced some degree of coercion while on the orders but many believed that CTOs provided necessary structure in their lives. Clinicians were more consistently positive but recognized the difficult choices in balancing the subject's right to self-determination with the benefits of a treatment order. Family members viewed CTOs as necessary to control a chaotic situation caused by the subject's limited insight.