Whither community care?

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.

Community treatment orders – a bridge too far?

Compulsory treatment in the community is high on the agenda in the current review of mental health legislation and the government has already announced its intention to introduce a ‘community treatment order’ (CTO; Department of Health, 1998). Concern about the implications of community care has been gathering momentum over the last decade, spurred on by tragedies such as those involving Ben Silcock and Christopher Clunis in the early 1990s. The notion that community care has failed has taken deep root with the media and the government (Department of Health, 1998). This is despite the lack of any evidence to suggest that mental illness is less effectively treated (Johnstone et al, 1991; Anderson et al, 1993) or that violence attributable to the mentally ill is rising (Taylor & Gunn, 1999). It also indicates a tendency to ignore the fact that patients prefer to live in the community (Tyrer, 1998). Psychiatrists, who are increasingly implicated in this purported failure of care, feel besieged. In such a climate, the promise of more power is understandably attractive. However, we feel that psychiatrists should resist pressure for this sort of ‘quick fix’ and reflect upon some of the dilemmas involved.

Use of intensive case management to reduce time in hospital in people with severe mental illness: systematic review and meta-regression

OBJECTIVES

To explain why clinical trials of intensive case management for people with severe mental illness show such inconsistent effects on the use of hospital care.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-regression techniques applied to data from randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane central register of controlled trials, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and PsychINFO databases from inception to January 2007. Additional anonymised data on patients were obtained for multicentre trials.

REVIEW METHODS

Included trials examined intensive case management compared with standard care or low intensity case management for people with severe mental illness living in the community. We used a fidelity scale to rate adherence to the model of assertive community treatment. Multicentre trials were disaggregated into individual centres with fidelity data specific for each centre. A multivariate meta-regression used mean days per month in hospital as the dependent variable.

RESULTS

We identified 1335 abstracts with a total of 5961 participants. Of these, 49 were eligible and 29 provided appropriate data. Trials with high hospital use at baseline (before the trial) or in the control group were more likely to find that intensive case management reduced the use of hospital care (coefficient -0.23, 95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.09, for hospital use at baseline; -0.44, -0.57 to -0.31, for hospital use in control groups). Case management teams organised according to the model of assertive community treatment were more likely to reduce the use of hospital care (coefficient -0.31, -0.59 to -0.03), but this finding was less robust in sensitivity analyses and was not found for staffing levels recommended for assertive community treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive case management works best when participants tend to use a lot of hospital care and less well when they do not. When hospital use is high, intensive case management can reduce it, but it is less successful when hospital use is already low. The benefits of intensive case management might be marginal in settings that have already achieved low rates of bed use, and team organisation is more important than the details of staffing. It might not be necessary to apply the full model of assertive community treatment to achieve reductions in inpatient care.

Does case management work? The evidence and the abuse of evidence-based medicine

OBJECTIVES

This study reviews typologies of psychiatric case management and then discusses the efficacy, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of psychiatric case management, with particular focus on evidence from Australia and the UK. Subsequently, it aims to examine the way such evidence has been interpreted in the context of UK psychiatric research and services. Finally it examines the ways in which, by the selective reviewing or editorializing of evidence, case management has been brought into disrepute in the UK.

METHOD

This study reviews literature of the recent evidence for case management, and asks three questions of case management: has it been shown to be efficacious in controlled research, is it effective in applied settings, and is it cost effective? An examination is then made of the concurrent representations of the UK evidence in both the academic literature and the media.

RESULTS

There is strong evidence for the efficacy effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of case management in psychiatry, the closer it conforms to active and assertive community treatment models. It appears, however, that studies and evidence-based reviews of case management have possibly been misused and misrepresented in a highly charged atmosphere of professional media debate. The potential for this abuse is not limited to psychiatry and remains a challenge for all evidence-based practice.

CONCLUSION

On the evidence, assertive community treatment case management is one of the most effective interventions in psychiatry today. Despite improving the evidence base for practice (e.g. as has occurred for case-management in psychiatry), evidence-based medicine (EBM) is still susceptible to compromise and misrepresentation, due to unexamined or undeclared bias. Unless this potential for abuse is recognized and checked, EBM in psychiatry is in danger of being discredited at the hand of some of its own proponents. There is a need for more rigorous pursuit of evidence-based psychiatry, including more systematic declaration of bias in all research, whether quantitative or qualitative in design.

Developing mental health services in a primary care setting: Liverpool Primary Care Mental Health Project

The Liverpool Primary Care Mental Health Project (PCMHP) was set up in 1996 to provide mental health services in a primary care setting. This study describes and evaluates an impact of a working model of a multi-disciplinary team in close association with five Liverpool practices. The data were collected on all patients who came in contact with the PCMHP team during a three-year period and compared with the data available for the five neighboring teams on waiting time between referral and assessment, clinical outcome, in-patient bed usage, GPs' and patients' satisfaction with services. The number of new referrals remained the same over three years. The usage of inpatient beds dropped by 38% in the same period. Waiting time between referral and assessment for new patients reduced from six weeks to one-two weeks. GP's were highly satisfied with access to CMH Nurses, overall communication with the team and overall delivery of the services. Over 80% of patients were satisfied with the services. Integrated mental health services with primary care proved to be effective and satisfactory to GPs as well as to patients. This approach did not increase the workload of the mental health team.

An evaluation of the implementation of case management in the community psychiatric nursing service

This paper reports the preliminary results of a study on the implementation of case management in the community psychiatric nursing service (CPNS). The purpose of the study is to compare the outcome of case management service with the conventional practice of CPNS in the care of chronic schizophrenic clients. The impact of case management service on clients' clinical status, functional level and satisfaction was measured. A matched, pre-post, case-control group design was used to compare case management and conventional care groups. A specific case management model based on the practice at Carondelet Saint Mary's Hospital and Health Centre in Tucson has been developed to care for the schizophrenic clients in the community. Subjects in the experimental group were cared for by CPNs using this case management model. Subjects in the control group were cared for by CPNs based on current practices in the CPNS. Pre- and post-measures were taken upon recruitment and at 5 months later. Findings showed that the experimental group had better outcome in terms of their mental status and functional level when compared with the control group. They were generally more satisfied with the service. When comparing case managers' role with that of conventional CPNs, case managers performed more in areas such as assessment, liaison, case discussion and life skills training. This study demonstrates that this particular model of case management can be effective in caring for clients with long-term mental health problems in Hong Kong.