Community treatment orders in a Swedish county--applied as intended?

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.

Compulsory community treatment to reduce readmission to hospital and increase engagement with community care in people with mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Compulsory community treatment (CCT) aims to reduce hospital readmissions among people with mental illness. However, research examining the usefulness of CCT is inconclusive. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of CCT in reducing readmission and length of stay in hospital and increasing community service use and treatment adherence.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched three databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Embase) for quantitative studies on CCT published in English between Jan 1, 1806, and Jan 4, 2018. We included both randomised and non-randomised designs that compared CCT with no CCT, and pre-post designs that compared patients before and after CCT. Studies were eligible if they had been peer-reviewed, if 50% or more of patients had severe mental illness, and if CCT was the intervention. Trials in which CCT was used in response to a criminal offence were excluded. We extracted data on study characteristics and length of follow-up, patient-level data on diagnosis, age, sex, race, and admission history, and outcomes of interest (readmission to hospital, inpatient bed-days, community service use, and treatment adherence) for meta-analysis, for which we extracted summary estimates. We used a random-effects model to compare disparate outcome measures and convert effect size statistics into standardised mean differences. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018086232.

FINDINGS

Of 1931 studies identified, 41 (2%) met inclusion criteria and had sufficient data for analysis. Before and after CCT comparisons showed significant large effects on readmission to hospital (standardised mean difference 0·80, 95% CI 0·53-1·08; I²=94·74), use of community services (0·83, 0·46-1·21; I²=87·26), and treatment adherence (2·12, 1·69-2·55; I²=0), and a medium effect on inpatient bed-days (0·66, 0·46-0·85; I²=94·12). Contemporaneous controlled comparison studies (randomised and non-randomised) showed no significant effect on readmission, inpatient bed-days, or treatment adherence, but a moderate effect on use of community services (0·38, 0·19-0·58; I²=96·92). A high degree of variability in study quality was found, with observational study ratings ranging from three to nine. Bias most frequently centred on poor comparability between CCT and control participants.

INTERPRETATION

We found no consistent evidence that CCT reduces readmission or length of inpatient stay, although it might have some benefit in enforcing use of outpatient treatment or increasing service provision, or both. Future research should focus on why some people do not engage with treatment offered and on enhancing quality of the community care available. Shortcomings of this study include high levels of variability between studies and variation in study quality.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research.

How clinicians make decisions about CTOs in ACT: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The first 12 Norwegian assertive community treatment (ACT) teams were piloted from 2009 to 2011. Of the 338 patients included during the teams' first year of operation, 38% were subject to community treatment orders (CTOs). In Norway as in many other Western countries, the use of CTOs is relatively high despite lack of robust evidence for their effectiveness. The purpose of the present study was to explore how responsible clinicians reason and make decisions about the continued use of CTOs, recall to hospital and the discontinuation of CTOs within an ACT setting.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with eight responsible clinicians combined with patient case files and observations of treatment planning meetings. The data were analysed using a modified grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

The participants emphasized that being part of a multidisciplinary team with shared caseload responsibility that provides intensive services over long periods of time allowed for more nuanced assessments and more flexible treatment solutions on CTOs. The treatment criterion was typically used to justify the need for CTO. There was substantial variation in the responsible clinicians' legal interpretation of dangerousness, and some clinicians applied the dangerousness criterion more than others.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the clinicians, many patients subject to CTOs were referred from hospitals and high security facilities, and decisions regarding the continuation of CTOs typically involved multiple and interacting risk factors. While patients' need for treatment was most often applied to justify the need for CTOs, in some cases the use of CTOs was described as a tool to contain dangerousness and prevent harm.

Little evidence for community treatment orders - a battle fought with heavy weapons

This editorial discusses the pros and cons of community treatment orders (CTOs) from the perspective of community general adult psychiatry. There is little scientific evidence supporting the application of CTOs. Preconditions of a CTO to work are likely to be met by few patients. The time for the application of a CTO may be better spent for patient-centred care until there is sufficient new and robust evidence that identifies the patients that might profit.

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.