Flexible assertive community treatment (FACT) model in specialist psychosis teams: an evaluation

[The new nursing professions in psychiatry: One man's dream, another man's nightmare?]

The deployment of case management and advanced nursing practice is shaking up the roles of the various professionals on mental health teams, and the usual organization of care in psychiatry. These changes can be perceived as either positive or worrying, depending on each individual's role and position. For the past 3 years, the mobile teams of the Centre rive gauche cluster at Le Vinatier hospital have been organized according to the principles of Flexible Assertive Community Treatment, and include an advanced practice nurse (APN) on their staff. The roles of the case manager and the APN have been rethought. A number of measures have facilitated the implementation of these new functions.

Healthcare Professionals' Experiences of Recovery-Oriented Collaboration Between Mental Health Centres and Municipalities: A Qualitative Study

Collaboration within mental health centres and with municipalities in Western European healthcare has presented challenges due to structural and cultural disparities. The Danish healthcare system faces obstacles that impact mental healthcare services, particularly in cross-sectorial cooperation. Our aim was to investigate healthcare professionals' experiences of recovery-oriented collaboration within a mental healthcare setting across hospitals and municipalities to gather a deeper understanding of this issue. Twenty-four employees were purposively sampled from mental health centres in Copenhagen and focus group interviews were conducted to explore their perceptions of working together. Inductive content analysis was used to analyse the data and identify themes and categories. The participants emphasised challenges in communication and coordination to improve collaboration within across the two sectors. This study can contribute to a greater understanding of collaboration between mental health centres and municipalities. It aims to inspire improvements in communication, coordination, and the optimisation of mental health service delivery across sectors.

Evaluation of a flexible assertive community treatment (FACT) program for patients with severe mental illness: an observational study in Salzburg, Austria

BACKGROUND

Inpatient treatment of severe mentally ill patients binds substantial resources and creates the dilemma of "revolving-door hospitalizations". Evidence suggests that these patients benefit more from an assertive outreach community psychiatric treatment. This descriptive study evaluates the implementation of a new treatment program for severe mentally ill patients provided by a flexible assertive community treatment (FACT) team.

METHODS

An uncontrolled design with routine data was used to measure the total length of stays, readmission rates and number of contacts one year prior to the implementation of the FACT program and the following first three years of treatment.

RESULTS

A continuous decrease of hospitalization among patients with severe mental illness was observed with the implementation of the FACT program with declines in total length of stays and readmission rates and accompanied with a decreasing number of contacts per year.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that this program may create effects in stabilizing patients with severe mental illness and may be highly relevant also for other patient groups.

Patient Outcomes of Flexible Assertive Community Treatment Compared With Assertive Community Treatment

OBJECTIVE

In many European countries, flexible assertive community treatment (FACT) has replaced assertive community treatment (ACT) despite limited evidence for FACT's effectiveness in improving functional and patient-reported outcomes. This study evaluated the effectiveness of FACT relative to ACT in improving functioning, client satisfaction, and the working alliance.

METHODS

The authors used a nonblinded, quasi-experimental controlled study design to compare outcomes of patients treated by ACT teams that were reconfigured to FACT teams with those of patients treated by a remaining ACT team. Patients from nine ACT teams in the Capital Region of Denmark were included. Six of the nine ACT teams were reconfigured to FACT in 2018 and 2019 by integrating them with community mental health teams. The remaining three ACT teams were used as control groups. Assignment to treatment was based solely on administrative considerations.

RESULTS

The study included 131 patients (FACT, N=74; ACT, N=57). Patients treated by FACT teams had poorer personal and social functioning than patients assigned to ACT teams (adjusted difference in means=-2.9, 95% CI=-5.8 to -0.1). No between-group differences were found in client satisfaction or working alliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated by FACT teams had significantly lower functioning than patients treated by ACT teams, but the clinical relevance or causality of this finding remains unclear. Given the reconfiguration of the FACT teams during follow-up, along with substantial drop-out rates and baseline differences between the two groups, these results must be interpreted with caution. The findings require further examination in a randomized controlled trial that includes fidelity measures of the treatment models.

Recovery-Oriented Cross-Sectoral Network Meetings between Mental Health Hospital Professionals and Community Mental Health Professionals: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Aims and objectives: In the medical field, we lack knowledge on how interprofessional collaboration across sectors is carried out. This paper explores how healthcare professionals and users perceive recovery-oriented cross-sectoral discharge network meetings between mental health hospital professionals and community mental health professionals and which discourses manifest themselves within the field of mental healthcare. Method: Ten professionals from a mental health hospital and eight community mental health professionals participated. In addition, five users with experience in mental health services in both sectors participated. Fairclough’s discourse analysis framework was used to explore their experiences. The study was designed following the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and Danish law. Each study participant in the two intersectoral sectors gave their informed consent after verbal and written information was provided. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was used as a guideline to secure accurate and complete reporting of the study). Results: The healthcare professionals in both sectors are governed by steering tools, legislation and a strong biomedical tradition to solve illness-related problems, such that users must be offered treatment and support to achieve self-care as soon as possible. This can be seen as a reflection of, and a driving force in, a change in the wider social practice that Fairclough terms the ‘marketisation of discourse’—a social development in late modernity, whereby market discourse colonises the discursive practices of public institutions. The user of psychiatric and social services experiences a structured system that does not offer the necessary time for deep conversations. Users do not consider recovery as something that is only seen in relation to the efforts of the professionals, as recovery largely takes place independently of professionals. Recovery depends on users’ internal resources and a strong network that can support them on the journey. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals perceive recovery-oriented cross-sectoral discharge network meetings to reflect paternalistic and biomedical discourses. Users want to be seen more as whole persons and did not experience sufficient involvement in the intersectoral care. Relevance to clinical practice: Healthcare professionals need to be supported to seek clarity in the understanding and operationalisation of a recovery-oriented approach, if the agenda is to be truly adopted and strengthened.

Effectiveness of Resource Groups for Improving Empowerment, Quality of Life, and Functioning of People With Severe Mental Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Although the importance of recovery-oriented care for people with severe mental illness (SMI) is widely acknowledged, essential elements such as personalization and involvement of significant others are not adequately implemented in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether using resource groups (RGs) within flexible assertive community treatment (FACT) has favorable effects on empowerment and recovery-related outcomes in people with SMI.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This assessor-blind, multisite randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 1, 2017, to September 30, 2020, with follow-up at 9 and 18 months. A total of 158 participants aged 18 to 65 years meeting the criteria for SMI were randomly allocated to FACT plus RG vs FACT as usual (1:1) in 20 FACT teams throughout the Netherlands. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021. The study was prespecified in the trial protocol and data from the intent-to-treat population were analyzed.

INTERVENTIONS

In the FACT plus RG condition, patients chose members from their informal and formal networks to form an RG that meets quarterly to discuss self-formulated recovery goals. The RG was integrated into the multidisciplinary support provided by the FACT team. In the FACT as-usual condition, empowerment (defined as overcoming powerlessness and gaining control of one's life) and involvement of significant others was also part of the provided care, but without the structure of the RG.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported empowerment, measured with the Netherlands Empowerment List.

RESULTS

A total of 158 participants with SMI (median age, 38 [median absolute deviation, 13] years; 93 men [58.9%]) were randomized to FACT plus RG (n = 80) or FACT as usual (n = 78) care. Intention-to-treat analyses showed that randomization to the RG condition was associated with a clinically significant increase in empowerment (Cohen d, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-0.86) and improved outcomes with small to medium effect sizes in terms of quality of life (Cohen d, 0.25; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.56), personal recovery (Cohen d, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.06-0.69), quality of social contact (Cohen d, 0.24; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.56), disability (Cohen d, 0.29; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.60), general functioning (Cohen d, 0.30; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.62), and social functioning (Cohen d, 0.28; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.59). No differences between conditions were found regarding psychopathological symptoms, attachment, frequency of social contact, and employment. Compared with FACT as usual, participants who stayed with the assigned treatment in the RG condition were more satisfied with treatment at 9 (Cohen d = 0.45; t135 = -2.62; P = .009) and 18 (Cohen d = 0.41; t116 = -2.22; P = .02) months.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings show that working with RGs improves empowerment and other mental health outcomes in people with SMI who receive community-based mental health services. This method of network-oriented care empowers people with SMI within their own environment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NL6548.

The effect of flexible assertive community treatment in Denmark: a quasi-experimental controlled study

BACKGROUND

Flexible assertive community treatment (FACT) is a community-based treatment model for patients with severe mental illness that has been widely implemented despite little evidence for its effectiveness. We aimed to evaluate the effect of FACT on mental health care outcomes compared with treatment from standard community mental health teams (CMHTs) or assertive community treatment (ACT) teams in Denmark.

METHODS

We did a quasi-experimental, propensity-score matched, controlled study in five FACT teams, four ACT teams, and five CMHTs in the Capital Region of Denmark. The FACT teams were established on May 1, 2016 (the index date). Patients were identified through the Danish Psychiatric Register and the study population consisted of all patients receiving care from any of these teams on the index date. Assignment to treatment was based on administrative considerations and was not done by the researchers. Patient data were collected from Danish registers. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and compared mental health care outcomes (psychiatric admissions and bed days, outpatient contacts, self-harm, coercion, and death by any cause) for patients under the care of CMHTs or ACT teams that were reconfigured to FACT teams (CMHT-FACT or ACT-FACT) with patients who remained under the care of CMHTs and ACT teams. Patients who received FACT were matched using propensity scores with control patients from CMHTs and ACT teams to balance differences in baseline characteristics.

FINDINGS

On May 1, 2016, 2034 individuals (887 in the CMHT-FACT group, 887 in the matched CMHT group, 130 in the ACT-FACT group, 130 in the matched ACT group) were enrolled and were followed up from Nov 1, 2016, to Nov 1, 2018. The number of outpatient contacts was higher for patients receiving FACT than for those in the control groups (CMHT-FACT vs CMHT: incidence rate ratio 1·15; 95 % CI 1·10-1·20; ACT-FACT vs ACT: 1·15; 1·03-1·29). Patients receiving FACT had fewer admissions than those in the control groups (CMHT-FACT vs CMHT: 0·84; 0·76-0·92; ACT-FACT vs ACT: 0·71; 0·59-0·85). However, there were no significant differences in total inpatient days, use of coercion, episodes of self-harm, or deaths.

INTERPRETATION

To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the effect of FACT compared with treatment from a CMHT or ACT team. Our results suggest that FACT can provide a more intensive approach in terms of increased outpatient contacts than CMHT care or ACT. FACT requires further evaluation through randomised controlled trials that include a cost-effectiveness component before wider implementation.

FUNDING

Mental Health Services in the Capital Region of Denmark.

Investigating the critical elements and psychosocial outcomes of Youth Flexible Assertive Community Treatment: a study protocol for an observational prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

When adolescents experience complex psychiatric and social problems, numerous healthcare services usually become involved. In these cases, fragmentation of care services is a risk that often results in both ineffective care and in patients disengaging from care services. To address these issues, Youth Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (Youth Flexible ACT) was developed in the Netherlands. This client-centred service delivery model aims to tackle the fragmented care system by providing psychiatric treatment and support in a flexible and integrated manner. While Youth Flexible ACT is gaining in popularity, the effectiveness of the care model remains largely unexamined.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Here, we present an observational prospective cohort (2017-2021) in which a broad range of treatment outcomes will be monitored. The primary aim of the study is to examine change in treatment outcomes over the course of the Flexible ACT care. The secondary aim is to examine the association between (elements of) Youth Flexible ACT model fidelity and treatment outcomes. An estimated total number of 200 adolescents who receive care from one of the 16 participating Youth Flexible ACT teams will be included in the study. Participants will be asked to complete assessments at four time points in 6-month intervals, resulting in a study duration of 18 months. Latent growth curve analysis will be conducted to examine change in psychosocial functioning over time and its relation to model fidelity.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethical approval from Trimbos Ethics Committee (201607_75-FACT2). This approval applies for all participating institutions. The results of the study will be reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic journals and presentations at conferences. In addition, results will be made available for participating sites, funders and researchers.

Innovation and Its Discontents: Pathways and Barriers in the Diffusion of Assertive Community Treatment

Policy Points Widespread diffusion of policy innovation is the exception rather than the rule, depending as it does on the convergence of a variety of intellectual, political, economic, and organizational forces. The history of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) provides a compelling case study of this process while also showing how conditions may shift over time, altering the scenarios for continued program expansion. Diffusion of a program like ACT challenges government to play a nuanced role in which public endorsement and resources are used to strengthen a worthwhile service, but without suppressing flexibility and ongoing experimentation as core program values. Acceptance as a proven form of "evidence-based practice" is a critical element in the validation of ACT and other community mental health interventions that combine clinical and social features in novel ways. However, the use of conventional evidence-based research as a singular gold standard of program value narrows the range of stakeholder input, as well as the evaluation methodologies and forms of data deemed worthy of attention.

CONTEXT

Originating at the county level in Wisconsin in the early 1970s, Assertive Community Treatment is one of the most influential mental health programs ever developed. The subject of hundreds of research studies and recipient of enthusiastic backing from private advocacy organizations and government agencies, the program has spread widely across the United States and internationally as a package of resources and management techniques for supporting individuals with severe and chronic mental illness in the community. Today, however, ACT is associated with a rising tide of criticism challenging the program's practices and philosophy while alternative service models are advancing.

METHODS

To trace the history of the Assertive Community Treatment movement, a diffusion-of-innovation framework was applied based on relevant concepts from public policy analysis, organizational behavior, implementation science, and other fields. In-depth review of the literature on ACT design, management, and performance also provided insight into the program's creation and subsequent evolution across different settings.

FINDINGS

A number of factors have functioned to fuel and to constrain ACT diffusion. The former category includes policy learning through research; the role of policy entrepreneurs; ACT's acceptance as a normative standard; and a thriving international epistemic community. The latter category includes cost concerns, fidelity demands, shifting norms, research contradictions and gaps, and a multifactorial context affecting program adoption. Currently, the program stands at a crossroads, strained by the principle of adherence to a long-standing operational framework, on the one hand, and calls to adjust to an environment of changing demands and opportunities, on the other.

CONCLUSIONS

For nearly 50 years, Assertive Community Treatment has been a mainstay of community mental health programming in the United States and other parts of the world. This presence will continue, but not in any static sense. A growing number of hybrid and competing versions of the program are likely to develop to serve specialized clientele groups and to respond to consumer demands and the recovery paradigm in behavioral health care.

The resource group method in severe mental illness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial and a qualitative multiple case study

BACKGROUND

The resource group method provides a structure to facilitate patients' empowerment and recovery processes, and to systematically engage significant others in treatment and care. A patient chooses members of a resource group (RG) that will work together on fulfilling patients' recovery plan. By adopting shared decision-making processes and stimulating collaboration of different support systems, a broad and continuous support of patients' chosen goals and wishes is preserved and problem solving and communication skills of the RG members are addressed.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study are (1) to establish the effectiveness of the RG method in increasing empowerment in patients with severe mental illnesses (SMI) in the Netherlands; (2) to investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of the RG method; and (3) to qualitatively explore its dynamics and processes.

METHODS/DESIGN

This multisite randomized controlled trial will compare the effects of the RG-method integrated in Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) (90 patients) with those of standard FACT (90 patients). Baseline assessments and 9-month and 18-month follow-up assessments will be conducted in face-to-face home visits. The primary outcome measure, empowerment, will be assessed using the Netherlands Empowerment List (NEL). The secondary outcomes will be quality of life (MANSA); personal, community and clinical recovery (I.ROC); general, social and community functioning (WHODAS 2.0); general psychopathological signs and symptoms (BSI-18); and societal costs (TiC-P). An economic evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of the RG method will also be conducted. A qualitative multiple case-study will be added to collect patients', RG members' and professionals' perspectives by in-depth interviews, observations and focus groups.

DISCUSSION

This trial will be the first to study the effects of the RG method on empowerment in patients with SMI. By combining clinical-effectiveness data with an economic evaluation and in-depth qualitative information from primary stakeholders, it will provide a detailed overview of the RG method as a mean of improving care for patients with SMI.Trial registration The study has been registered in the Dutch Trial Register, identifier: NTR6737, September 2017.