Search

The only randomised controlled trial to test high-fidelity assertive community treatment (ACT) in the UK (the Randomised Evaluation of Assertive Community Treatment (REACT) study) found no advantage over usual care from community mental health teams in reducing the need for in-patient care and in other clinical outcomes, but participants found ACT more acceptable and engaged better with it. One possible reason for the lack of efficacy of ACT might be the short period of follow-up (18 months in the REACT study). This paper reports on participants' service contact, in-patient service use and adverse events 36 months after randomisation.

Objective: To compare outcomes of care from assertive community treatment teams with care by community mental health teams for people with serious mental illnesses., Design: Non-blind randomised controlled trial., Setting: Two inner London boroughs., Participants: 251 men and women under the care of adult secondary mental health services with recent high use of inpatient care and difficulties engaging with community services., Interventions: Treatment from assertive community treatment team (127 participants) or continuation of care from community mental health team (124 participants)., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was inpatient bed use 18 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, social function, client satisfaction, and engagement with services., Results: No significant differences were found in inpatient bed use (median difference 1, 95% confidence interval -16 to 38) or in clinical or social outcomes for the two treatment groups. Clients who received care from the assertive community treatment team seemed better engaged (adapted homeless engagement acceptance schedule: difference in means 1.1, 1.0 to 1.9), and those who agreed to be interviewed were more satisfied with services (adapted client satisfaction questionnaire: difference in means 7.14, 0.9 to 13.4)., Conclusions: Community mental health teams are able to support people with serious mental illnesses as effectively as assertive community treatment teams, but assertive community treatment may be better at engaging clients and may lead to greater satisfaction with services.

Background: Psychiatrists are asked to give opinions as to fitness to plead, a legal concept. There is a dearth of research into fitness to plead in the UK, with no prospective studies and no studies involving the comparison of fit and unfit subjects. In particular, there have been no investigations into the meaning of 'unfit to plead' in terms of psychiatric symptomatology, or as to the relative importance of each legal fitness criterion in psychiatrists' conclusions as to fitness., Method: The study comprised a prospective evaluation of 479 consecutive referrals to psychiatrists at court. Individual legal fitness criteria were examined as predictors of unfitness. Associations of unfitness, and of individual legal fitness criteria, were examined with Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) symptom scores., Results: The two most important of the legal criteria in clinical decisions as to unfitness were whether the person could follow the proceedings of the trial or give adequate instructions to their solicitor. The legal criteria concerning trial were more predictive of unfitness than those concerning plea. Unfitness was significantly associated with the presence of positive psychotic symptomatology, in particular conceptual disorganization and delusional thinking, but not with symptoms of anxiety, depression or withdrawal., Conclusion: Unfitness is most significantly associated with symptoms affecting comprehension and communication. The fitness criteria could be simplified without loss of power. These results, predominantly concerned with mental illness, may not generalize to the mentally impaired.

Background: Few formalized shared care schemes exist within psychiatry and the evidence base for sharing psychiatric care is weak., Aims: To evaluate the utility of patient-held shared care records for individuals with long-term mental illness., Method: Cluster-randomised controlled parallel-group 12-month trial involving 90 patients with long-term mental illness drawn from 28 general practices., Results: Carrying a shared care record had no significant effect on mental state or satisfaction with psychiatric services. Compared with controls, patients in the shared care group were no more likely to be admitted (relative risk 1.2, 95% CI 0.86-1.67) and attend clinic (relative risk 0.96, 95% CI 0.67-1.36) over the study period. Uptake of the shared care scheme was low by patients and professionals alike. Subjects with psychotic illness were significantly less likely to use their records (relative risk 0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.99)., Conclusions: Patient-held records may not be helpful for patients with long-term mental illness.

Background: The general practitioner (GP) has traditionally been the first port of call for people with psychiatric morbidity but increasingly other members of the primary care team see the patients first, particularly practice nurses. The numbers and roles of practice nurses have expanded greatly over the past decade and it is important that practice nurses are able to recognize patients with psychiatric morbidity. This paper reports a study to determine the abilities of 24 practice nurses to detect psychiatric morbidity in patients attending their clinics., Methods: Twenty-four practices were randomly selected from 41 practices recruited from South London and Kent. One nurse per practice took part in the study. Patients were asked to complete a 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) while waiting for their appointment with the practice nurse. Following their consultation, the practice nurse rated the patients' level of psychological distress on a five-point rating scale., Results: The response rate of patients was 97% (N= 1710). The GHQ case rate was 36%. The mean detection rate by practice nurses when identifying significant distress was 16% (between nurse variation, 0% to 61%). The mean specificity was 96% (variation 77% to 100%). A second analysis, changing the nurse criterion to recognition of distress increased the mean sensitivity rate to 58% (variation 31% to 84%) but the mean specificity rate decreased to 66% (variation 26% to 95%)., Conclusions: These results demonstrate that practice nurses' caseloads include a high proportion of patients with psychiatric morbidity and that agreement with the GHQ classification of psychiatric morbidity is modest. Therefore, training in detection will be crucial for the nurses.