Community treatment orders and reduced time in hospital: a nationwide study, 2007-2012

Compulsory Community Treatment Orders in New Zealand and the provision of care: An examination of national databases and predictors of outcome

BACKGROUND

Compulsory Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) are contentious because they impose severe restrictions on individuals in community settings. The existing evidence for CTOs is constrained by ethical and methodological limitations and may not support usual clinical practise. This study examines the effectiveness of CTOs using routine data in the New Zealand context.

METHODS

Ministry of Health, New Zealand databases provided demographic, service use, and medication dispensing data for all individuals placed on a CTO between 2009 and 2018. We examined the effectiveness of CTOs through a comparison of psychiatric endpoints identified as useful in the literature according to CTO status. Further analyses examined the moderating influences of age, sex, ethnicity, and diagnosis on outcome.

FINDINGS

14,726 patients were placed under a CTO over the 10 year period between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2018. Patients on CTOs experienced a reduced frequency of admissions (rate ratio of 0∙94, 95% CI 0.93-0.95, p<0.01) reduced admission days (rate ratio 0∙97, 95% CI 0.97-0.98 p<0∙01), increased frequency of psychiatric community contacts (rate ratio 3∙03, 95% CI 3.02-3.03 p<0.01), and increased dispensing of psychiatric medication (rate ratio 2.27, 95% CI 2.27-2.28, p<0.01). When sub-group analyses were undertaken, the association between treatment under a CTO and reduced admission frequency was only present for those with Psychotic Disorders.

INTERPRETATION

CTOs in New Zealand are associated with increased community care, and increased dispensing of psychiatric medication. Patients with Psychotic Disorders also experienced reduced frequency and length of admissions whilst under a CTO.

FUNDING

No specific funding was received for this study.

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.

The Mental Healthcare Act 2017 of India: A challenge and an opportunity

The Mental Healthcare Act 2017 replaced the Mental Health Act 1987, subsequent to India's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007. The Mental Healthcare Act (MHCA) 2017 upholds patient autonomy, dignity, rights and choices during mental healthcare and thus marks a bold step in India's mental health legislation. This new Law marks a major shift in the way mental healthcare is delivered, as it aims to protect and promote the rights of people during the delivery of mental healthcare. Within this Act, a capacitous individual cannot be coerced into receiving treatment for mental illness and inpatient admissions can be 'independent' or 'supported'. 'Supported admission' replaces involuntary admission from the previous legislation. State mental health authorities and mental health review boards will play a major role in the implementation of the new Act. The Mental Healthcare Act 2017 is aimed at bringing about radical transformation to mental healthcare in India.

Community Treatment Orders and Other Forms of Mandatory Outpatient Treatment

This position paper has been substantially revised by the Canadian Psychiatric Association's Professional Standards and Practice Committee and approved for republication by the CPA's Board of Directors on July 26, 2018. The original position paper¹ was first approved by the Board of Directors on January 25, 2003. It was subsequently reviewed and approved for republication with minor revisions on June 2, 2009.

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.

Community treatment orders in England: review of usage from national data

Aims and methodCommunity treatment orders (CTOs) have been in used in England and Wales since November 2008; however, their effectiveness has been debated widely, as has the question of which methodology is appropriate to investigate them. This paper uses national data to explore the use of CTOs in England.

RESULTS

About 5500 patients are subject to CTOs at any one time. Each year, ~4500 patients are made subject to a CTO each year and ~2500 are fully discharged, usually by the responsible clinician; fewer than half of CTO patients are recalled, and two-thirds of recalls end in revocation. The low rate of CTO discharges by mental health tribunals (below 5%) suggests that they are not used inappropriately.Clinical implicationsThe introduction of CTOs in England has coincided with a reduction in psychiatric service provision due to the economic downturn. Pressures on services might be even more severe if patients currently subject to CTOs instead needed to be detained as in-patients.Declaration of interestNone.

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.

Notes on the use of randomised controlled trials to evaluate complex interventions: Community treatment orders as an illustrative case

Over the past seven decades, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have revolutionised clinical research and achieved a gold standard status. However, extending their use to evaluate complex interventions is problematic. In this paper we will demonstrate that complex intervention RCTs violate the necessary premises that govern the RCTs logic and underpin their rigour. The lack of blinding, heterogeneity of participants, as well as poor treatment standardisation and difficulty of controlling for confounders, which characterise complex intervention RCTs, can potentially be profoundly detrimental to their integrity. Proponents of this approach argue that matching "real world" circumstances, while maintaining the randomised design, enhances external validity. We counter this argument by pointing out that an inverted U relation exists between internal and external validity, and thus relaxing the experimental conditions beyond a certain threshold can potentially paradoxically render the RCT externally invalid, i.e. its results cannot be used anywhere. We shall illustrate the inappropriate use of RCTs to evaluate community treatment orders and propose an alternative epistemic model that is based on mechanistic reasoning and Cartwright's capacity concept.

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.