Search

Objective The triple bottom line (TBL) of sustainability is an important emerging conceptual framework which considers the combined economic, environmental and social impacts of an activity. Despite its clear relevance to the healthcare context, it has not yet been applied to the evaluation of a healthcare intervention. The aim of this study was to demonstrate whether doing so is feasible and useful. Design Secondary data analysis of a 12-month randomized controlled trial. Setting Community based mental health care. Participants Patients with chronic psychotic illnesses (n = 333). Intervention(s) Community treatment orders. Main Outcome Measure(s) Financial and environmental (CO2 equivalent) costs of care, obtained from healthcare service use data, were calculated using publicly available standard costs; social sustainability was assessed using standardized social outcome measures included in the trial data. Results Standardized costing and CO2e emissions figures were successfully obtained from publicly available data, and social outcomes were available directly from the trial data. Conclusions This study demonstrates that TBL assessment can be retrospectively calculated for a healthcare intervention to provide a more complete assessment of the true costs of an intervention. A basic methodology was advanced to demonstrate the feasibility of the approach, although considerable further conceptual and methodological work is needed to develop a generalizable methodology that enables prospective inclusion of a TBL assessment in healthcare evaluations. If achieved, this would represent a significant milestone in the development of more sustainable healthcare services. If increasing the sustainability of healthcare is a priority, then the TBL approach may be a promising way forward.

Background When psychosis emerges in young people there is a risk of poorer outcomes, and access to evidence-based treatments is paramount. The current evidence base is limited. Antipsychotic medications show only a small benefit over placebo, but young people experience more side effects than adults. There is sparse evidence for psychological intervention. Research is needed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological intervention versus antipsychotic medication versus a combined treatment for adolescents with psychosis. Objectives The objective of Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS) was to determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial to answer the question of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these three treatment options. Design This was a prospective, randomised, open-blinded, evaluation feasibility trial with a single blind. Participants were allocated 1 : 1 : 1 to receive antipsychotic medication, psychological intervention or a combination of both. A thematic qualitative study explored the acceptability and feasibility of the trial. Setting Early intervention in psychosis services and child and adolescent mental health services in Manchester, Oxford, Lancashire, Sussex, Birmingham, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Northumberland, Tyne and Wear. Participants People aged 14–18 years experiencing a first episode of psychosis either with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis or meeting the entry criteria for early intervention in psychosis who had not received antipsychotic medication or psychological intervention within the last 3 months. Interventions Psychological intervention involved up to 26 hours of cognitive–behavioural therapy and six family intervention sessions over 6 months, with up to four booster sessions. Antipsychotic medication was prescribed by the participant’s psychiatrist in line with usual practice. Combined treatment was a combination of psychological intervention and antipsychotic medication. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was feasibility (recruitment, treatment adherence and retention). We used a three-stage progression criterion to determine feasibility. Secondary outcomes were psychosis symptoms, recovery, anxiety and depression, social and educational/occupational functioning, drug and alcohol use, health economics, adverse/metabolic side effects and adverse/serious adverse events. Results We recruited 61 out of 90 (67.8%; amber zone) potential participants (psychological intervention, n = 18; antipsychotic medication, n = 22; combined treatment, n = 21). Retention to follow-up was 51 out of 61 participants (83.6%; green zone). In the psychological intervention arm and the combined treatment arm, 32 out of 39 (82.1%) participants received six or more sessions of cognitive–behavioural therapy (green zone). In the combined treatment arm and the antipsychotic medication arm, 28 out of 43 (65.1%) participants received antipsychotic medication for 6 consecutive weeks (amber zone). There were no serious adverse events related to the trial and one related adverse event. Overall, the number of completed secondary outcome measures, including health economics, was small. Limitations Medication adherence was determined by clinician report, which can be biased. The response to secondary outcomes was low, including health economics. The small sample size obtained means that the study lacked statistical power and there will be considerable uncertainty regarding estimates of treatment effects. Conclusions It is feasible to conduct a trial comparing psychological intervention with antipsychotic medication and a combination treatment in young people with psychosis with some adaptations to the design, including adaptations to collection of health economic data to determine cost-effectiveness. Future work An adequately powered definitive trial is required to provide robust evidence. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80567433. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundEffective interventions, targeting key contributory causal factors, are needed to prevent the emergence of severe mental health problems in young people. Insomnia is a common clinical issue that is problematic in its own right but that also leads to the development and persistence of psychotic experiences. The implication is that treating sleep problems may prevent the onset of psychosis. We collected initial case series data with 12 young people at ultra-high-risk of psychosis. Post-intervention, there were improvements in sleep, depression and psychotic experiences. Now we test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial, with a clinical aim to treat sleep problems and hence reduce depression, psychotic experiences, and prevent transition to psychosis.Methods and analysisA randomised controlled feasibility trial will be conducted. Forty patients aged 14 to 25 years who are at ultra-high-risk of psychosis and have sleep disturbance will be recruited from National Health Service (NHS) mental health services. Participants will be randomised to receive either a novel, targeted, youth-focussed sleep intervention in addition to usual care or usual care alone. Assessor-blinded assessments will be conducted at baseline, 3 months (post-intervention) and 9 months (follow-up). The eight-session psychological intervention will target the key mechanisms which disrupt sleep: circadian rhythm irregularities, low sleep pressure, and hyperarousal. To gain an in-depth understanding of participants’ views on the acceptability of the intervention and study procedures, 16 participants (n=10 intervention, n=6 control) will take part in qualitative interviews. Analyses will focus on feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention, and treatment uptake rates) and provide initial CI estimates of intervention effects. Thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews will assess the acceptability of the intervention and trial procedures.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has received ethical approval from the NHS Health Research Authority. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and lay networks.Trial registration numberISRCTN85601537.

Background Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis. Methods We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14–18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data on trial referral and recruitment, session attendance or medication adherence, retention, and treatment acceptability) and the proposed primary efficacy outcome was total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at 6 months. Primary outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported according to as-treated status, for all patients who had received at least one session of CBT or family intervention, or at least one dose of antipsychotics. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433. Findings Of 101 patients referred to the study, 61 patients (mean age 16·3 years [SD 1·3]) were recruited from April 10, 2017, to Oct 31, 2018, 18 of whom were randomly assigned to psychological intervention, 22 to antipsychotics, and 21 to antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. The trial recruitment rate was 68% of our target sample size of 90 participants. The study had a low referral to recruitment ratio (around 2:1), a high rate of retention (51 [84%] participants retained at the 6-month primary endpoint), a high rate of adherence to psychological intervention (defined as six or more sessions of CBT; in 32 [82%] of 39 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups), and a moderate rate of adherence to antipsychotic medication (defined as at least 6 consecutive weeks of exposure to antipsychotics; in 28 [65%] of 43 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups). Mean scores for PANSS total at the 6-month primary endpoint were 68·6 (SD 17·3) for antipsychotic monotherapy (6·2 points lower than at randomisation), 59·8 (13·7) for psychological intervention (13·1 points lower than at randomisation), and 62·0 (15·9) for antipsychotics plus psychological intervention (13·9 points lower than at randomisation). A good clinical response at 6 months (defined as ≥50% improvement in PANSS total score) was achieved in four (22%) of 18 patients receiving antipsychotic monotherapy, five (31%) of 16 receiving psychological intervention, and five (29%) of 17 receiving antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. In as-treated groups, serious adverse events occurred in eight [35%] of 23 patients in the combined group, two [13%] of 15 in the antipsychotics group, four [24%] of 17 in the psychological intervention group, and four [80%] of five who did not receive any treatment. No serious adverse events were considered to be related to participation in the trial. Interpretation This trial is the first to show that a head-to-head clinical trial comparing psychological intervention, antipsychotics, and their combination is safe in young people with first-episode psychosis. However, the feasibility of a larger trial is unclear because of site-specific recruitment challenges, and amendments to trial design would be needed for an adequately powered clinical and cost-effectiveness trial that provides robust evidence. Funding National Institute for Health Research.

This paper gives a narrative account of how the Oxford Healthcare Improvement Centre has embedded continuous quality improvement (CQI) across both mental health and community services in Oxford, UK. The aim of the centre is to develop capability across healthcare services, with frontline staff leading CQI independently. The paper discusses the various methods employed to achieve this aim, including the provision of training, mentoring and support to those undertaking improvement work, alongside developing the required governance for CQI.

Constant observation is frequently conducted on inpatient psychiatric units to manage patients at risk of harming themselves or others. Despite its widespread use, there is little evidence of the efficacy of the practice or of its impact on patients and nursing staff. Unnecessary use of this practice can be restrictive and distressing for all involved and can cause considerable strain on healthcare resources. We sought to review interventions aiming to improve the quality and safety of constant observation or to reduce unnecessary use of this restrictive practice on adult inpatient psychiatric wards. A systematic search conducted in December 2018 using PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and Google Scholar identified 24 studies with interventions related to constant observation. Only 16 studies evaluated a total of 13 interventions. The most common intervention components were changes to team, education and training for staff, changes to record keeping and assessment, and involving patients in care. A range of outcome measures were used to evaluate interventions. Over half of the interventions showed some positive impact on constant observation. One study recorded patient feedback. All interventions were targeted towards mental health nurses. Overall, there is no consensus on how best to improve the safety and quality of constant observations or reduce its unnecessary use. Studies vary widely in design, intervention and outcome measures. Existing research does however suggest that teamwork interventions can improve the patient experience of constant observation and safely reduce their degree and frequency. Priorities for future research on constant observations are highlighted.

SummaryThe UK's Choosing Wisely campaign aims to tackle the pressing issue of overuse in healthcare (i.e. overdiagnosis and overtreatment) through improving awareness and promoting shared decisionmaking. This campaign involves medical societies developing lists of interventions that are of questionable value and so require a genuine discussion between doctors and patients about their use. This article is about the problem of overuse and the launch of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Choosing Wisely campaign. It provides a critical review of why this might occur and whether Choosing Wisely is likely to be successful.Learning Objectives• Understand the aims of the Choosing Wisely programme• Define overdiagnosis and overtreatment• Develop a critical perspective on potential areas of overuse in your clinical practice

AimTo assess the effects of a social prescribing service development on healthcare use and the subsequent economic and environmental costs.BackgroundSocial prescribing services for mental healthcare create links with support in the community for people using primary care. Social prescribing services may reduce future healthcare use, and therefore reduce the financial and environmental costs of healthcare, by providing structured psychosocial support. The National Health Service (NHS) is required to reduce its carbon footprint by 80% by 2050 according to the Climate Change Act (2008). This study is the first of its kind to analyse both the financial and environmental impacts associated with healthcare use following social prescribing. The value of this observational study lies in its novel methodology of analysing the carbon footprint of a service at the primary-care level.MethodAn observational study was carried out to assess the impact of the service on the financial and environmental impacts of healthcare use. GP appointments, psychotropic medications and secondary-care referrals were measured.FindingsResults demonstrate no statistical difference in the financial and carbon costs of healthcare use between groups. Social prescribing showed a trend towards reduced healthcare use, mainly due to a reduction in secondary-care referrals compared with controls. The associations found did not achieve significance due to the small sample size leading to a large degree of uncertainty regarding differences. This study demonstrates that these services are potentially able to pay for themselves through reducing future healthcare costs and are effective, low-carbon interventions, when compared with cognitive behavioral therapy or antidepressants. This is an important finding in light of Government targets for the NHS to reduce its carbon footprint by 80% by 2050. Larger studies are required to investigate the potentials of social prescribing services further.

SummaryTo date there have been few peer-reviewed studies on the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of digital technologies for mental health promotion and disorder prevention. Any evaluation of these evolving technologies is complicated by a lack of understanding about the specific risks and possible benefits of the many forms of internet use on mental health. To adequately meet the mental health needs of today's society, psychiatry must engage in rigorous assessment of the impact of digital technologies.

The 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has caused renewed concern among both clinicians and health policy makers. Climate change is continuing at an increasing rate. This guest editorial describes how climate change might affect global mental health and proposes three things that psychiatrists from every country could implement to respond appropriately to this urgent and severe global threat. These responses are mitigation and adaptation strategies for mental health services, and the integration of sustainability into training.

There is robust evidence that electroconvulsive therapy is an effective treatment for some mental illnesses. Despite this, its use remains controversial and is declining in some countries, with a consequent loss of skills and knowledge. This, and the view of it as a ‘treatment of last resort’, may undermine its sustainability.

SummaryDemands on our mental health services are growing as financial pressures increase. In addition, there are regular changes to service design and commissioning. The current political mantra is ‘more and more, of better quality, for less and less, please’. We suggest that mental health services need to actively respond to these constraints and that clinical transformation is needed to move towards a more sustainable system of healthcare. Emphasis on prevention, patient empowerment and leaner, greener services is required alongside more extensive use of technologies. Focusing on these areas will make mental health services more responsive to the challenges we face and serve to future-proof psychiatry in the UK. Services need to be delivered to provide maximum benefit to the health of our patients, but also to our society and the environment.

Making threats and offers to patients is a strategy used in community mental healthcare to increase treatment adherence. In this paper, an ethical analysis of these types of proposal is presented. It is argued (1) that the primary ethical consideration is to identify the professional duties of care held by those working in community mental health because the nature of these duties will enable a threat to be differentiated from an offer, (2) that threatening to act in a way that would equate with a failure to uphold the requirements of these duties is wrong, irrespective of the benefit accrued through treatment adherence and (3) that making offers to patients raises a number of secondary ethical considerations that need to be judged on their own merit in the context of individual patient care. The paper concludes by considering the implications of these arguments, setting out a pathway designed to assist community mental healthcare practitioners to determine whether making a specific proposal to a patient is right or wrong.

PURPOSE: The evidence regarding community treatment order effectiveness has been conflicting. This systematic review aims to bring up to date the review performed by Churchill and colleagues in 2005 by assessing and interpreting evidence of CTO effectiveness defined by admission rates, number of inpatient days, community service use, and medication adherence published since 2006. METHOD: Databases were searched to obtain relevant studies published from January 2006 to March 2013. RESULTS: 18 studies including one randomised controlled trial were included. There remains lack of evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies that CTOs are associated with or affected by admission rates, number of inpatient days or community service use. The most recent and largest RCT is included in this review and found no significant impact on admission rate (RR = 1.0, 95% CI 0.75-1.33) or number of days in hospital (IR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.65-1.26). Results from the two largest longitudinal datasets included in this review do not concur. Studies using the New York dataset found that CTOs were associated with reduced admission rates and inpatient days, while studies using the Victoria dataset generally found that they were associated with increased admission rates and inpatient days. CONCLUSION: There is now robust evidence in the literature that CTOs have no significant effects on hospitalisation and other service use outcomes. Non-randomised studies continue to report conflicting results. Distinguishing between CTO recall and revocation and different patterns of community contact is needed in future research to ensure differentiation between CTO process and outcome.

The idea that some medical procedures are unnecessary and can do more harm than good is as old as medicine itself. In Mesopotamia 38 centuries ago, Hammurabi pro-claimed a law threatening overzealous surgeons with the loss of a hand or an eye. In 1915, at the height of a surgical vogue for prophylactic appendicectomy, Ernest Codman offended his Boston colleagues with a cartoon (figure) mocking their indifference to outcomes and asking, “I wonder if clinical truth is incompatible with medical science? Could my clinical professors make a living without humbug?” Diagnosis drives treatment, and in recent years the term overdiagnosis has been used to describe various situations where diagnoses lead to unnecessary treatment, wasting resources while increasing patient anxiety. Overdiagnosis can be said to occur when “individuals are diagnosed with conditions that will never cause symptoms or death” often as a “consequence of the enthusiasm of early diagnosis.” Overtreatment includes treatment of these overdiagnosed conditions. It also encompasses treatment that has minimal evidence of benefit or is excessive (in complexity, duration, or cost) relative to alternative accepted standards. A recent report by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges argued that doctors have an ethical responsibility to reduce this wasted use of clinical resource because, in a healthcare system with finite resources, one doctor's waste is another patient's delay.A culture of “more is better,” where the onus is on doctors to “do something” at each consultation has bred unbalanced decision making. Even before the inception of the NHS, the British tradition has generally been one of late adoption and cautious use of new medicines, procedures, and technologies. Nevertheless, the UK shows similar patterns of variation in use of medical and surgical interventions to those in the US, though less extreme in absolute terms. The National Institute for Health and Care …

Aims and methodThis study explores the economic cost and carbon footprint associated with current patterns of prescribing long-term flupentixol decanoate long-acting injections. We conducted an analysis of prescription data from a mental health trust followed by economic and carbon cost projections using local and national data.ResultsA reduction of £300 000 could be achieved across England by improving prescribing behaviour, which equates to £250 per patient per year and 170 000 kg CO2e. These savings are unlikely to be released as cash from the service, but will lead to higher-value service provision at the same or lower cost. Most of these carbon emissions are attributable to the carbon footprint of the appointment – 88000 kg CO2e (including energy use and materials used) and the overprescribing of medication – 66000kg CO2e.Clinical implicationsPsychiatrists need to review their prescribing practice of long-acting injections to reduce their impact on the National Health Service financial budget and the environment.

Background Therapeutic communities (TCs) could reduce the health care use of people with personality disorder (Davies S, Campling P and Ryan K, Psychiatrist 23:79–83, 1999; Barr W, Kirkcaldy A, Horne A, Hodge S, Hellin K and Göpfert M, J Ment Health 19:412–421, 2010) and in turn reduce the financial and environmental costs of services. Our hypothesis is that 3 years following entry to a TC service, patients have reduced subsequent health care use and associated reductions in financial costs and carbon footprint.MethodsA retrospective 4-year cohort study examined changes in health care use following entry to the Oxfordshire TC service. Comparative analysis was undertaken on a treated (n = 40) and a control group (referred but who declined treatment; n = 45). Financial costs and carbon footprint of health care use were calculated using national tariffs and standard carbon conversion factors. Mean changes in these outcomes were compared over 1, 2 and 3 years and adjusted for costs and carbon footprints in the year prior to joining the TC service.ResultsCompared to baseline, the group receiving TC care had greater reductions in financial costs and carbon footprint associated with A&E attendances (p = 0.04) and crisis mental health appointments (p = 0.04) than the control group. There were significantly greater reductions in carbon footprint for all secondary health care use, both physical and mental health care, after 3 years (p = 0.04) in the TC group.ConclusionsTC services may have the potential to reduce the financial cost and carbon footprint of health care.Keywords: Sustainability, Personality disorders, Carbon footprint, Economic evaluation

A Malhotra and colleagues explain how and why a US initiative to get doctors to stop using interventions with no benefit is being brought to the UK

The availability and use of mental health treatments are influenced by many different factors. Prominent among these are scientific evidence, cost, ethics and politics. However, the social sustainability of treatments can also have a considerable influence on their use.

Non-attendance at mental health clinics is an international problem. A survey was conducted in the UK investigating communication methods used by staff to inform and remind patients about appointments. Increased number of communication methods used was associated with a reduced non-attendance rate. A care modelling analysis is provided that explores the healthcare use of three hypothetical patients following clinic non-attendance. The financial and environmental costs of each are then calculated and results discussed. Reducing non-attendance is achievable through the use of multiple communication methods. This small change can improve the sustainability of mental healthcare in different countries by improving quality of care and reducing financial and environmental costs.

The mental health effects of climate change are significant and highly concerning, yet little is known about the magnitude of these effects or how best to manage them. This introduction to the thematic papers in this issue explains why climate change is an increasingly important matter for all health services.

Social networking sites (SNS) are having an increasing influence on patients' lives and doctors are far from certain about how to deal with this new challenge. In our literature search, we could find no research on how doctors could engage positively with SNS to improve patient outcomes or create more patient-led care. We need to acknowledge the fact that a review of a patient's SNS page has the potential to enhance assessment and management, particularly where a corroborant history is hard to attain. As doctors, we need to think clearly about how to adapt our practice in light of this new form of communication; in particular, whether there is a case for engaging with SNS to improve patient care.

While neglect is generally associated with poor developmental outcomes, it remains poorly defined. Factor analysis was applied to 39 parental behavior variables on data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD) to explore underlying dimensions of parental behavior that were consistent with the concept of neglect. Logistic regression assessed associations between the dimensions of neglect recovered from the CSDD and future adult delinquency. Factor analysis revealed four dimensions; logistic regression revealed significant associations between two of these dimensions--poor supervision and a disorganized, chaotic home environment--and future adult delinquency. Neglect is a viable construct that can summarize aspects of parental behavior and predict future adult delinquency.

I was involved in a road crash more than three years ago, just after I had completed my second year at the medical school at University College London. The crash resulted in substantial lesions in my right brachial plexus. As you can imagine, the loss of function in my right arm has had, and is having, a considerable effect on my training in medical school. Needless to say, I have encountered difficulties, but not nearly as many as I expected. Clinical examinations were the first obstacle, but I have found that there are alternative techniques to be used. Some examination techniques I am unable to perform, such as palpation of the kidneys. Thankfully, on occasions when examinations are not possible, pertinent investigations can be requested on the basis of the patient's history alone. The principal restraint on my career is that surgery, and other dexterous specialties, are no longer career options; I am fortunate, therefore, to have interests in areas of medicine other than these. > I have to explain …