Reappraising community treatment orders - can there be consensus?

Rates of use of community treatment orders in Australia

OBJECTIVES

The variable and changing rates of use of involuntary community treatment orders (CTOs) in the treatment of people living with mental illness are not well-documented or well understood. This new study sought to determine contemporary rates of use in Australia, where local jurisdictions were previously shown to have varied and shifting rates of use that were high by world standards.

METHODS

Australian state and territory mental health review tribunals, health departments, and/or offices of the chief psychiatrist were surveyed for the most recent published annual data on the total number of individual people placed on a CTO and/or the total number of CTOs made.

FINDINGS

Contemporary rates of CTO use in Australia range from 40.0 per 100,000 population (in Western Australia) to 112.5 per 100,000 (in South Australia). Since the last national survey, the rates of people subject to CTOs fell into in two jurisdictions (Victoria and Western Australia). However, rates of CTOs made were higher than previous figures in all jurisdictions reporting data. Use of CTOs in Australia varies considerably within and between jurisdictions.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian jurisdictions continue to use CTOs at high and varying rates, despite unresolved questions about their role and impact. Transparency and accountability around their use would be improved by regular and nationally uniform public reporting of CTO data. Further research into how and why CTOs are used may also provide opportunities to respond to factors driving their use and thereby reduce the use of coercion in mental health care.

A systematic review of the views and experiences of subjects of community treatment orders

OBJECTIVE

CTOS have been the subject of many qualitative and quantitative research studies. Both research approaches add value to our understanding of CTOs. Qualitative studies provide an understanding of CTOs and the experience of being on a CTO that quantitative studies cannot provide. Many qualitative studies that have examined the views of subjects of CTOs have been published. However, authors of these studies continue to note that views and experiences of the subjects of these orders are not well known. This paper provides the results of a systematic review of qualitative studies focused on understanding the experiences of individuals who have been the subjects of CTOs.

METHOD

Relevant databases and grey literature were searched. To be included, a study had to have used a qualitative methodology for data collection and analysis, and focus on examining stakeholder perspectives on the lived experience of CTOs.

RESULTS

After a rigorous review of the abstracts, we identified 22 papers that met the criteria. These papers were analysed in detail in order to examine the existence of common themes. The 22 papers represented the views of 581 participants from 7 countries around the world. Ten themes were found to be common among the research findings of the 22 papers. Three themes in particular were highlighted: feelings of coercion and control, medication seen as the main reason for a CTO and that the perception of CTOs as a safety net. Findings also highlight the ambivalence that subjects of CTOs experience, the importance of the therapeutic relationship for successful engagement of the subject of the CTO and the complex role of coercion.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We have made a number of recommendations about how clinicians might use the views of the subjects of CTOs achieve a more positive experience of a CTO.

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.

Care planning for consumers on community treatment orders: an integrative literature review

BACKGROUND

Case management is the established model for care provision in mental health and is delivered within current care philosophies of person-centred and recovery-oriented care. The fact that people with a mental illness may be forced to receive care and treatment in the community poses challenges for clinicians aiming to engage in approaches that promote shared decision-making and self-determination. This review sought to gain an in-depth understanding of stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of care planning for consumers' on CTOs.

METHODS

An integrative review method allowed for inclusion of a broad range of studies from diverse empirical sources. Systematic searches were conducted across six databases. Following appraisal, findings from included papers were coded into groups and presented against a framework of case management.

RESULTS

Forty-eight papers were included in the review. Empirical studies came from seven countries, with the majority reporting on qualitative methods. Many similarities were reported across studies. Positive gains from CTOs were usually associated with the nature of support received, highlighting the importance of the therapeutic relationship in care planning. Key gaps in care planning included a lack of connection between CTO, treatment and consumer goals and lack of implementation of focussed interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Current case management processes could be better utilised for consumers on CTOs, with exploration of how this could be achieved warranted. Workers need to be sensitive to the 'control and care' dynamic in the care planning relationship, with person-centred approaches requiring core and advanced practitioner and communication skills, including empathy and trust.

Rate of community treatment orders and readmission orders following reconfiguration of community mental health services

OBJECTIVES

Community treatment orders (CTOs) are a controversial practice as they extend the practice of involuntary treatment into the community. This study aimed to determine whether there was a difference in the rate of CTOs and revocation (readmission) orders following the implementation of a recovery-orientated model across four adult mental health services.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted prior to and after the reconfiguration of services. Population data for those aged 15 to 65 were obtained from a census and rate rates were calculated.

RESULTS

Prior to the reconfiguration, there were 893 individuals subject to a CTO and 136 of these individuals had a revocation of their CTO (i.e. were involuntarily readmitted). This represented a rate of 100.8 individuals on CTOs per 100,000 population and a rate of 15.4 revocations per 100,000 population. Following the reconfiguration, the rate of CTOs increased by 10% and there was a trend for the rate of revocation orders to have decreased by 17%.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of CTOs and readmissions varied across services and further research is warranted to identify factors associated with these increased rates. Additionally, the very high rate of CTOs in the catchment areas warrants further examination.

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.

Mental health service utilisation after a Community Treatment Order: A comparison between three modes of termination

OBJECTIVE

Little work has examined Community Treatment Order processes, including mode of termination. This paper aimed to examine service utilisation and legal status following the Community Treatment Order termination by a review board, treating psychiatrist or expiry of order.

METHOD

Data-linkage study following the service utilisation of those discharged from a Community Treatment Order of at least 3-month duration for the subsequent 2 years. We used the state-wide database of all contacts with state-funded mental health services in Victoria, Australia.

RESULTS

Of the 1478 patients who were discharged, 5% were discharged by the review board, 88% were discharged by the treating psychiatrist and in 7% the order expired. Logistic regression indicated that those discharged by the treating service were less likely to be subsequently placed under an involuntary order than those discharged by the Mental Health Review Board or those whose order had expired (odds ratio = 0.61).

CONCLUSION

Poorly planned discharge as a result of expiry of the Community Treatment Order or abrupt discharge by the review board may be associated with a more severe relapse and subsequent need for compulsory treatment. The likelihood of being readmitted as an involuntary patient is greater for younger adults and those living in urban settings. In order to minimise the risk of major relapse, strong community engagement with treating services should be supported.