Kim Sutherby

Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsory treatment in psychiatry: single blind randomised controlled trial

Abstract Objective To investigate whether a form of advance agreement for people with severe mental illness can reduce the use of inpatient services and compulsory admission or treatment. Design Single blind randomised controlled trial, with randomisation of individual patients. The investigator was blind to allocation. Setting Eight community mental health teams in southern England. Participants 160 people with an operational diagnosis of psychotic illness or non-psychotic bipolar disorder who had experienced a hospital admission within the previous two years. Intervention The joint crisis plan was formulated by the patient, care coordinator, psychiatrist, and project worker and contained contact information, details of mental and physical illnesses, treatments, indicators for relapse, and advance statements of preferences for care in the event of future relapse. Main outcome measures Admission to hospital, bed days, and use of the Mental Health Act over 15 month follow up. Results Use of the Mental Health Act was significantly reduced for the intervention group, 13% (10/80) of whom experienced compulsory admission or treatment compared with 27% (21/80) of the control group (risk ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.95, P = 0.028). As a consequence, the mean number of days of detention (days spent as an inpatient while under a section of the Mental Health Act) for the whole intervention group was 14 compared with 31 for the control group (difference 16, 0 to 36, P = 0.04). For those admitted under a section of the Mental Health Act, the number of days of detention was similar in the two groups (means 114 and 117, difference 3, −61 to 67, P = 0.98). The intervention group had fewer admissions (risk ratio 0.69, 0.45 to 1.04, P = 0.07). There was no evidence for differences in bed days (total number of days spent as an inpatient) (means 32 and 36, difference 4, −18 to 26, P = 0.15 for the whole sample; means 107 and 83, difference −24, −72 to 24, P = 0.39 for those admitted). Conclusions Use of joint crisis plans reduced compulsory admissions and treatment in patients with severe mental illness. The reduction in overall admission was less. This is the first structured clinical intervention that seems to reduce compulsory admission and treatment in mental health services.

Joint crisis plans for people with psychosis: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial

Abstract Objective To investigate the cost effectiveness of joint crisis plans, a form of advance agreement for people with severe mental illness. Design Single blind randomised controlled trial. Setting Eight community mental health teams in southern England. Participants 160 people with a diagnosis of psychotic illness or non-psychotic bipolar disorder who had been admitted to hospital at least once within the previous two years. Intervention Joint crisis plan formulated by the patient, care coordinator, psychiatrist, and project worker containing contact information, details of illnesses, treatments, relapse indicators, and advance statements of preferences for care for future relapses. Control group was standardised service information. Main outcome measures Admission to hospital; service use over 15 months. Results Use of a joint crisis plan was associated with less service use and lower costs on average than in the standardised service information group, but differences were not significant. Total costs during follow-up were £7264 (€10 616,

Outcomes and costs of a community support worker service for the severely mentally ill

13 560) for each participant with a joint crisis plan and £8359 (€12 217,

Joint crisis plans for people with borderline personality disorder: feasibility and outcomes in a randomised controlled trial.

15 609) for each participant with standardised service information (mean difference £1095; 95% confidence interval −2814 to 5004). Cost effectiveness acceptability curves, used to explore uncertainty in estimates of costs and effects, suggest there is a greater than 78% probability that joint crisis plans are more cost effective than standardised service information in reducing the proportion of patients admitted to hospital. Conclusion Joint crisis plans produced a non-significant decrease in admissions and total costs. Though the cost estimates had wide confidence intervals, the associated uncertainty suggests there is a relatively high probability of the plans being more cost effective than standardised service information for people with psychotic disorders.

Randomised Controlled Trial of Joint Crisis Plans to Reduce Compulsory Treatment for People with Psychosis: Economic Outcomes

There has recently been an expansion of paraprofessional staff involved in the provision of care for the severely mentally ill. In this paper we shall evaluate the effects of a community support worker (CSW) service in South London. A sample of patients with severe mental illness receiving the service was assessed over a 6‐month period in order to examine the effects of continuing use of CSWs on outcomes, service use and costs. During the study period there were improvements in outcome reflecting service satisfaction, needs, quality of life and social behaviour. Whilst provision of the CSW service did not lead to extra total service costs, service use and cost data suggest that CSWs are associated with the substitution of in‐patient use by community‐based services.

The effectiveness of joint crisis plans for people with borderline personality disorder: protocol for an exploratory randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND People with borderline personality disorder frequently experience crises. To date, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of crisis interventions for this population have been published. AIMS To examine the feasibility of recruiting and retaining adults with borderline personality disorder to a pilot RCT investigating the potential efficacy and cost-effectiveness of using a joint crisis plan. METHOD An RCT of joint crisis plans for community-dwelling adults with borderline personality disorder (trial registration: ISRCTN12440268). The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of self-harming behaviour over the 6-month period following randomisation. Secondary outcomes included depression, anxiety, engagement and satisfaction with services, quality of life, well-being and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS In total, 88 adults out of the 133 referred were eligible and were randomised to receive a joint crisis plan in addition to treatment as usual (TAU; n = 46) or TAU alone (n = 42). This represented approximately 75% of our target sample size and follow-up data were collected on 73 (83.0%) participants. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed no significant differences in the proportion of participants who reported self-harming (odds ratio (OR) = 1.9, 95% CI 0.53-6.5, P = 0.33) or the frequency of self-harming behaviour (rate ratio (RR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.34-1.63, P = 0.46) between the two groups at follow-up. No significant differences were observed between the two groups on any of the secondary outcome measures or costs. CONCLUSIONS It is feasible to recruit and retain people with borderline personality disorder to a trial of joint crisis plans and the intervention appears to have high face validity with this population. However, we found no evidence of clinical efficacy in this feasibility study.

Joint crisis plans for people with psychosis: economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial

Background Compulsory admission to psychiatric hospitals may be distressing, disruptive to patients and families, and associated with considerable cost to the health service. Improved patient experience and cost reductions could be realised by providing cost-effective crisis planning services. Methods Economic evaluation within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing Joint Crisis Plans (JCP) plus treatment as usual (TAU) to TAU alone for patients aged over 16, with at least one psychiatric hospital admission in the previous two years and on the Enhanced Care Programme Approach register. JCPs, containing the patients treatment preferences for any future psychiatric emergency, are a form of crisis intervention that aim to mitigate the negative consequences of relapse, including hospital admission and use of coercion. Data were collected at baseline and 18-months after randomisation. The primary outcome was admission to hospital under the Mental Health Act. The economic evaluation took a service perspective (health, social care and criminal justice services) and a societal perspective (additionally including criminal activity and productivity losses). Findings The addition of JCPs to TAU had no significant effect on compulsory admissions or total societal cost per participant over 18-months follow-up. From the service cost perspective, however, evidence suggests a higher probability (80%) of JCPs being the more cost-effective option. Exploration by ethnic group highlights distinct patterns of costs and effects. Whilst the evidence does not support the cost-effectiveness of JCPs for White or Asian ethnic groups, there is at least a 90% probability of the JCP intervention being the more cost-effective option in the Black ethnic group. Interpretation The results by ethnic group are sufficiently striking to warrant further investigation into the potential for patient gain from JCPs among black patient groups. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11501328

O-90 Randomised controlled trial of joint crisis plans to reduce compulsory treatment for people with psychosis: Clinical outcomes and implementation

BackgroundBorderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a common mental disorder associated with raised mortality, morbidity and substantial economic costs. Although complex psychological interventions have been shown to be useful in the treatment of BPD, such treatments are expensive to deliver and therefore have limited availability and questionable cost-effectiveness. Less complex interventions are required for the management of BPD. A Joint Crisis Plan (JCP) is a record containing a service users treatment preferences for the management of future crises and is created by the service user with the help of their treating mental health team. These plans have been shown to to be an effective way of reducing compulsory treatment in people with psychosis. However, to date they have not been used with individuals with BPD. This exploratory trial will examine whether use of a JCP is an effective and cost-effective intervention for people with BPD for reducing self-harm.Methods/DesignIn this single blind exploratory randomized controlled trial, a total of 120 participants (age >18 years with a primary diagnosis of DSM-IV borderline personality disorder) will be recruited from community mental health teams and, after completing a baseline assessment, will be assigned to one of two conditions: (1) a Joint Crisis Plan, or (2) treatment as usual. Those allocated to the JCP condition will take part in a facilitated meeting, the purpose of which will be to agree the contents of the plan. Following the meeting, a typed version of the JCP will be sent to the patient and to any other individuals specified by the participant. All participants will be followed-up at 6 months. The primary outcome measures are: any self-harm event, time to first episode of self-harm and number of self-harm events over the follow-up period. Secondary outcome measures are length of time from contemplation to act of self-harm, help-seeking behaviour after self-harm, cost, working alliance, engagement with services and perceived coercion. Other outcome variables are quality of life, social impairment and satisfaction with treatment.DiscussionResults of this trial will help to clarify the potential beneficial effects of JCPs for people with BPD and provide information to design a definitive trial.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN12440268

Clinical outcomes of Joint Crisis Plans to reduce compulsory treatment for people with psychosis: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE To investigate the cost effectiveness of joint crisis plans, a form of advance agreement for people with severe mental illness. DESIGN Single blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING Eight community mental health teams in southern England. PARTICIPANTS 160 people with a diagnosis of psychotic illness or non-psychotic bipolar disorder who had been admitted to hospital at least once within the previous two years. INTERVENTION Joint crisis plan formulated by the patient, care coordinator, psychiatrist, and project worker containing contact information, details of illnesses, treatments, relapse indicators, and advance statements of preferences for care for future relapses. Control group was standardised service information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Admission to hospital; service use over 15 months. RESULTS Use of a joint crisis plan was associated with less service use and lower costs on average than in the standardised service information group, but differences were not significant. Total costs during follow-up were 7264 pounds sterling (10,616 euros, 13,560 dollars) for each participant with a joint crisis plan and 8359 pounds sterling (12,217 euros, 15,609 dollars) for each participant with standardised service information (mean difference 1095 pounds sterling; 95% confidence interval -2814 to 5004). Cost effectiveness acceptability curves, used to explore uncertainty in estimates of costs and effects, suggest there is a greater than 78% probability that joint crisis plans are more cost effective than standardised service information in reducing the proportion of patients admitted to hospital. CONCLUSION Joint crisis plans produced a non-significant decrease in admissions and total costs. Though the cost estimates had wide confidence intervals, the associated uncertainty suggests there is a relatively high probability of the plans being more cost effective than standardised service information for people with psychotic disorders.

Views of service users and providers on joint crisis plans

Background A Joint Crisis Plan (JCP) aims to empower patients whilst facilitating early detection and treatment of relapse. Two studies have suggested that JCPs might reduce compulsory treatment and improve therapeutic relationships. Aim The CRIMSON randomised controlled trial compared JCPs with treatment as usual for people with severe mental illness. Methods Eligibility criteria were: at least one psychiatric admission in the previous two years and on Enhanced Care Programme Approach register. The settings were 64 community mental health teams. The intervention was the JCP, a negotiated statement by a patient of treatment preferences for any future psychiatric emergency. Hypotheses tested were that, compared to the control group, the intervention group would experience: (1) fewer compulsory admissions; (2) fewer psychiatric admissions; (3) shorter psychiatric stays; (4) lower perceived coercion; (5) improved therapeutic relationships; and (6) improved engagement. Results 569 participants were randomised (285 experimental, 284 control group). No significant treatment effect was seen for the primary outcome (56 (20%) in the control arm and 49 (18%) in the JCP arm; odds ratio 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.39, p = 0.63) or admissions outcomes, however there was evidence for improved therapeutic relationships (17.3 (7.6) v 16.0 (7.1); adjusted difference –1.28 (95% CI –2.56 to –0.01, p = 0.049). Qualitative data supported this finding. Discussion The results contrast with two earlier studies. There is evidence to suggest the JCPs were not fully implemented in all sites. Conclusion The study raises important questions about implementing new interventions in routine practice.