Cost-effective or profligate community psychiatry?

Community-Based Psychiatric Services in Sri Lanka: a Model by WHO in the Making

Sri Lanka is a lower middle-income, small island nation in the Indian Ocean, with a multi-ethnic population of 22 million. The healthcare system of the country is well established and relatively advanced, the delivery of which is free to the consumer. The health indicators of the country are impressive compared to regional figures. Psychiatric care in Sri Lanka has witnessed a rapid development over the last four decades, as the care model transformed from an asylum-based model, established during the British colonial times, to a district-wise hospital-based, care delivery model. Gradually, the teams that provided inpatient and outpatient services at the hospitals also started to provide community-based care. The newly added community-based services include outreach clinics, residential intermediate rehabilitation centres, home-based care, community resource/support centres and telephone help lines. There is no or very little funding dedicated to community-based care services. The teams that deliver community services are funded, mostly indirectly, by the state health authorities. This is so, as these community teams are essentially the same psychiatry teams that are based at the hospitals, which are funded and run by the state health authorities. This lack of separation of the community and hospital teams without separate and dedicated funding is an impediment to service development, which needs to be addressed. However, paradoxically, this also constitutes an advantage, as the provision of care delivery from the hospital to the community is continuous, since the same team provides both hospital- and community-based care. In addition to the essential mental healthcare provision in the community with this basic infrastructure, each community service has improvised and adapted the utilization of other resources available to them, both formally as well as informally, to compensate for their financial and human resource limitations. These other resources are the community officials and the community services of the non-health sectors of the government, mainly the civil administration. Although sustainability may be questionable when services involve informal resources from the non-health sectors, these have so far proven useful and effective in a resource-poor environment, as they bring the community and various sectors together to facilitate services to support their own community.

Traditions of research in community mental health care planning and care coordination: A systematic meta-narrative review of the literature

CONTEXT

In response to political and social factors over the last sixty years mental health systems internationally have endeavoured to transfer the delivery of care from hospitals into community settings. As a result, there has been increased emphasis on the need for better quality care planning and care coordination between hospital services, community services and patients and their informal carers. The aim of this systematic review of international research is to explore which interventions have proved more or less effective in promoting personalized, recovery oriented care planning and coordination for community mental health service users.

METHODS

A systematic meta-narrative review of research from 1990 to the present was undertaken. From an initial return of 3940 papers a total of 50 research articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including research from the UK, Australia and the USA.

FINDINGS

Three research traditions are identified consisting of (a) research that evaluates the effects of government policies on the organization, management and delivery of services; (b) evaluations of attempts to improve organizational and service delivery efficiency; (c) service-users and carers experiences of community mental health care coordination and planning and their involvement in research. The review found no seminal papers in terms of high citation rates, or papers that were consistently cited over time. The traditions of research in this topic area have formed reactively in response to frequent and often unpredictable policy changes, rather than proactively as a result of intrinsic academic or intellectual activity. This may explain the absence of seminal literature within the subject field. As a result, the research tradition within this specific area of mental health service delivery has a relatively short history, with no one dominant researcher or researchers, tradition or seminal studies amongst or across the three traditions identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The research findings reviewed suggests a gap has existed internationally over several decades between policy aspirations and service level interventions aimed at improving personalised care planning and coordination and the realities of everyday practices and experiences of service users and carers. Substantial barriers to involvement are created through poor information exchange and insufficient opportunities for care negotiation.

Community psychiatry in developing countries – a misnomer?

There has been a rush towards community psychiatry in the developed world in the past few decades (Tyrer, 1998a). In developing countries the concept has been equally popular and various programmes have been described (Burns, 1998; Goldberg, 1992; Issac, 1996). The term ‘community psychiatry’ originates from a peculiar historical background, is based on certain principles and is shaped by the existing pattern of mental health services in many Western countries. Although the term is vague, its application is especially problematic in developing countries. In this article an attempt will be made to highlight the origins of the term community psychiatry and its application in developing countries.

Crisis intervention: the professionals' perspective

Aims and Method

To describe the attitudes of the professionals of a multi-disciplinary crisis intervention service (CIS) towards the service they provide. To establish whether there are differences in attitudes between the different professional disciplines involved. A questionnaire was mailed to all the professionals working in the Barnet CIS (n=94). Differences were analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis test.

Results

The overall response rate was 84%. Statistically significant differences were found between the different disciplines in 10 of the 37 questions (27%) on the questionnaire. Opinions differed most on issues of safety and acceptance of clinical responsibility.

Clinical Implications

Despite general ag reement on most issues, we found differences of opinion in important areas such as arrangements for team safety and clinical responsibility. These differences may create tensions within the multi-disciplinary groups and may influence the attitudes of professionals to crisis work. Measures need to be taken to address these issues in order to improve morale and staff satisfaction.

Full metal jacket or the emperor's new clothes?

Launched with little more than a whimper during the Labour Party Conference the much vaunted National Service Framework for Mental Health (NSF–MH) outlines the Government's ‘ambitious agenda’ for mental health services (Department of Health, 1999a). The official driving force has been the desire to deliver a quality service throughout the whole NHS via clinical governance and underpinned by professional self-regulation. Developed following widespread consultation and with the advice of the External Reference Group (although some of this advice was clearly disregarded), the NSF–MH provides a series of seven core standards with examples of good practice. Although developed with general psychiatry and severe mental illness in mind, the NSF is not quite the ‘National Schizophrenia Framework’ that some envisaged, since it also acknowledges the needs of young people and the influence of developmental factors on adult mental health. The NSF–MH sets standards in five areas: mental health promotion, primary care and access to services, services for the severely mentally ill, caring about carers and preventing suicide. It is only the second to be published (the other being for coronary care) which is hopefully a reflection of the ‘priority’ once more being given to mental health. However, the near-simultaneous appointment of a cancer ‘tsar’ suggests that ‘priority’ is a readily used and easily diluted term.

Developing psychosis and its risk states through the lens of schizotypy

Starting from the early descriptions of Kraepelin and Bleuler, the construct of schizotypy was developed from observations of aberrations in nonpsychotic family members of schizophrenia patients. In contemporary diagnostic manuals, the positive symptoms of schizotypal personality disorder were included in the ultra high-risk (UHR) criteria 20 years ago, and nowadays are broadly employed in clinical early detection of psychosis. The schizotypy construct, now dissociated from strict familial risk, also informed research on the liability to develop any psychotic disorder, and in particular schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, even outside clinical settings. Against the historical background of schizotypy it is surprising that evidence from longitudinal studies linking schizotypy, UHR, and conversion to psychosis has only recently emerged; and it still remains unclear how schizotypy may be positioned in high-risk research. Following a comprehensive literature search, we review 18 prospective studies on 15 samples examining the evidence for a link between trait schizotypy and conversion to psychosis in 4 different types of samples: general population, clinical risk samples according to UHR and/or basic symptom criteria, genetic (familial) risk, and clinical samples at-risk for a nonpsychotic schizophrenia-spectrum diagnosis. These prospective studies underline the value of schizotypy in high-risk research, but also point to the lack of evidence needed to better define the position of the construct of schizotypy within a developmental psychopathology perspective of emerging psychosis and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

Meeting the needs of people with schizophrenia living in the community: a report from a European collaboration

OBJECTIVES

This study was carried out as part of a collaborative European study, with the aim of assessing needs in a population with chronic schizophrenia in the context of a community service, and also to measure service use in this population.

METHOD

This is the first part of a 12 month follow-up study of a sample of persons with schizophrenia who were in contact with the psychiatric services. Seventy eight patients who matched the inclusion criteria were randomly selected and 64 (82%) were interviewed using the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuro-Psychiatry (SCAN) and the Needs for Care Assessment Schedule (NCAS). Service use data for a 12 month period were collected prospectively using the Mannheim Service Recording Sheet (MSRS).

RESULTS

The levels of clinical and social need were quite low at 2.1 and 2.6 respectively. Most needs were met; unmet need was 0.11 for clinical problems and 0.4 for social. Service use was high, with a total of 6,969 contacts with community services, a mean of 109 per patient per year. Total service use (including inpatient and hostel) was partly predictive of met need (R2 23.6). The levels of met and unmet need in Dublin compare favourably with that reported in Mannheim and Granada. Service use was similar to that in Mannheim, although there was a higher level of service provision in Mannheim.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown that there is a low level of clinical and social need in this sample of patients with schizophrenia living in the community, and a relatively high level of service use. There is good evidence that services are meeting the needs of this sample of patients.

Developing mental health services in response to research evidence

Over the last thirty to forty years, psychiatric care in England has relocated from hospital-based settings to community mental health teams (CMHTs) and supported accommodation. Since the 1980s, two forms of intensive home based treatment have evolved in addition to CMHTS, assertive community treatment (ACT) and crisis resolution teams (CRTs). On the basis of evidence for their efficacy in the US and other countries, they have been implemented across England through the Government's National Service Framework for Mental Health. This paper describes this evidence and the first UK studies that were carried out to evaluate these newly implemented services.Methods– Descriptions of the evaluations of ACT and CRTs in the inner London boroughs of Camden and Islington.Results– The implementation of CRTs in North London were associated with reduced use of inpatient services, but the ACT teams were not. Both types of team were associated with greater patient satisfaction with services and the ACTs were better able to engage patients than CMHTs.Conclusions– The authors comment on the implications of the findings for service planners in terms of the difficulties in implementing innovative approaches based on the best available evidence when it originates outside the local context.

Declaration of Interest:These studies were funded by Camden and Islington Health Authority, the King's Fund and the Department of Health.

Beyond the first episode: candidate factors for a risk prediction model of schizophrenia

Many early psychosis services are financially compromised and cannot offer a full tenure of care to all patients. To maintain viability of services it is important that those with schizophrenia are identified early to maximize long-term outcomes, as are those with better prognoses who can be discharged early. The duration of untreated psychosis remains the mainstay in determining those who will benefit from extended care, yet its ability to inform on prognosis is modest in both the short and medium term. There are a number of known or putative genetic and environmental risk factors that have the potential to improve prognostication, though a multivariate risk prediction model combining them with clinical characteristics has yet to be developed. Candidate risk factors for such a model are presented, with an emphasis on environmental risk factors. More work is needed to corroborate many putative factors and to determine which of the established factors are salient and which are merely proxy measures. Future research should help clarify how gene-environment and environment-environment interactions occur and whether risk factors are dose-dependent, or if they act additively or synergistically, or are redundant in the presence (or absence) of other factors.

Assessing the evidence on case management

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the impact of case management is contradictory.

AIMS

To discuss two different systematic reviews (one conducted by the authors and one conducted through the Cochrane collaboration) that came to contradictory conclusions about the impact of case management in mental health services.

METHOD

We summarised the findings of the two reviews with respect to case management effectiveness, examined key methodological differences between the two approaches and discuss the impact of these on the validity of the results.

RESULTS

The differences in conclusions between the two reviews result from the differences in inclusion criteria, namely non-randomised trials, data from unpublished scales and data from variables with skewed distributions. The theoretical and empirical effects of these are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic reviewers may face a trade-off between the application of strict criteria for the inclusion of studies and the amount of data available for analysis and hence statistical power. The available research suggests that case management is generally effective.

Rational decision-making in mental health: the role of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND: "Systematic reviews" have come to be recognized as the most rigorous method of summarizing confusing and often contradictory primary research in a transparent and reproducible manner. Their greatest impact has been in the summarization of epidemiological literature - particularly that relating to clinical effectiveness. Systematic reviews also have a potential to inform rational decision-making in healthcare policy and to form a component of economic evaluation. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This article aims to introduce the rationale behind systematic reviews and, using examples from mental health, to introduce the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews, particularly in informing mental health policy and economic evaluation. METHODS: Examples are selected from recent controversies surrounding the introduction of new psychiatric drugs (anti-depressants and anti-schizophrenia drugs) and methods of delivering psychiatric care in the community (case management and assertive community treatment). The potential for systematic reviews to (i) produce best estimates of clinical efficacy and effectiveness, (ii) aid economic evaluation and policy decision-making and (iii) highlight gaps in the primary research knowledge base are discussed. Lastly examples are selected from outside mental health to show how systematic reviews have a potential to be explicitly used in economic and health policy evaluation. RESULTS: Systematic reviews produce the best estimates of clinical efficacy, which can form an important component of economic evaluation. Importantly, serious methodological flaws and areas of uncertainty in the primary research literature are identified within an explicit framework. Summary indices of clinical effectiveness can be produced, but it is difficult to produce such summary indices of cost effectiveness by pooling economic data from primary studies. Modelling is commonly used in economic and policy evaluation. Here, systematic reviews can provide the best estimates of effectiveness and, importantly, highlight areas of uncertainty that can be used in "sensitivity analysis". DISCUSSION: Systematic reviews are an important recent methodological advance, the potential for which has only begun to be realized in mental health. This use of systematic reviews is probably most advanced in producing critical summaries of clinical effectiveness data. Systematic reviews cannot produce valid and believable conclusions when the primary research literature is of poor quality. An important function of systematic reviews will be in highlighting this poor quality research which is of little use in mental health decision making. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH PROVISION: Health care provision should be both clinically and cost effective. Systematic reviews are a key component in ensuring that this goal is achieved. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Systematic reviews have potential to inform health policy. Examples presented show that health policy is often made without due consideration of the research evidence. Systematic reviews can provide robust and believable answers, which can help inform rational decision-making. Importantly, systematic reviews can highlight the need for important primary research and can inform the design of this research such that it provides answers that will help in forming healthcare policy. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Systematic reviews should precede costly (and often unnecessary) primary research. Many areas of health policy and practice have yet to be evaluated using systematic review methodology. Methods for the summarization of economic data are methodologically complex and deserve further research