Search

Introduction: Community mental health services in Hong Kong follow a multi-disciplinary case management model. We investigated whether at-risk patients received higher intensity care and whether risk stratification concorded between personalised care programmes and integrated community centres of mental wellness. Methods: Records of all patients in North Lantau and Mongkok districts who received case management services (from personalised care programmes and/or integrated community centres of mental wellness) between 1 April 2014 and 30 June 2015 were reviewed. Patients' levels of risk, demographic data, and clinical characteristics were analysed. Results: Identified at-risk patients received high-intensity care from personalised care programmes and integrated community centres of mental wellness. Case management was coordinated between the Hospital Authority and non-government organisations. However, risk stratification did not correlate with assessment rating scores of psychopathology or psychosocial functioning. Assessment rating scales appear unsuitable to provide any optimal cut-off scores for risk stratification. Conclusions: Risk stratification should be a structured clinical judgement based on comprehensive and accurate information of protective and risk factors, rather than relying on cut-off scores of assessment rating scales.