Stephen Puntis

Effect of increased compulsion on readmission to hospital or disengagement from community services for patients with psychosis: follow-up of a cohort from the OCTET trial

BACKGROUND Community treatment orders (CTOs) have not been shown in randomised trials to reduce readmission to hospital in patients with psychosis, but these trials have been short (11-12 months). We previously investigated the effect of CTOs on readmission rates over 12 months in a randomised trial (OCTET). Here, we present follow-up data for a cohort of individuals recruited to our original trial to examine the long-term effect of CTOs on readmissions and the risk of patients disengaging from mental health services temporarily or enduringly. METHODS For OCTET, an open-label, parallel, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients aged 18-65 years involuntarily admitted to mental health hospitals in 32 trusts in England, with a diagnosis of psychosis and deemed suitable for CTOs by their clinicians. Between Nov 10, 2008, and Feb 22, 2011, we recruited and randomly assigned 336 eligible patients (1:1) to be discharged on either a CTO (n=167) or to voluntary status via Section 17 leave (control group; n=169). For the analysis presented in this report, we assessed data at 36 months for 330 of these patients. We tested rates of readmission to hospital, time to first readmission, number of readmissions, and duration of readmission in patients assigned to CTO versus those assigned to control, and in all patients with CTO experience at any time in the 36 months versus those without. We also tested whether duration of CTO affected readmission outcomes in patients with CTO experience. We examined discontinuation (≥60 days between clinical contacts) and disengagement from services (no clinical contact for ≥90 days with no return to contact) in the whole cohort. OCTET is registered with isrctn.com, number ISRCTN73110773. FINDINGS We obtained data for 330 patients in the relevant period between Nov 10, 2008 and Feb 22, 2014 (36 months after the last patient was randomly assigned to OCTET). We identified no difference between the randomised groups in the numbers of patients readmitted (100 [61%] of 165 CTOs vs 113 [68%] of 165 controls; relative risk 0·88 [95% CI 0·75-1·03]), number of readmissions (mean 2·4 readmissions [SD 1·91] vs 2·2 [1·43]; incident density ratio [IDR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·76-1·24]), duration of readmissions (median 117·5 days [IQR 63-303] vs 139·5 days [63·0-309·5]; IDR 0·84 [95% CI 0·51-1·38]), or time to first readmission (median 601·0 days [95% CI 387·0-777·0] vs 420·0 days [352·0-548·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·81 [95% CI 0·62-1·06]). The CTO experience group had significantly more readmissions than the group without (IDR 1·39 [95% CI 1·07-1·79]) and we noted no significant difference between groups in readmission rates, duration of readmission, or time to first readmission. We did not identify a linear relationship between readmission outcomes and duration of CTO. 19 (6%) patients disengaged from services (12 [7%] of 165 CTOs vs 7 [4%] of 165 controls). Longer duration of compulsion was associated with later disengagement (HR 0·946 [95% CI 0·90-0·99, p=0·023). 187 (57%) experienced no discontinuities, and we noted no significant difference between the CTO and control groups for time to disengagement or number of discontinuities. Levels of discontinuity were associated with compulsion (IDR 0·973 [95% CI 0·96-0·99, p<0·0001]. We identified no effect of baseline characteristics on the associations between compulsion and disengagement. INTERPRETATION We identified no evidence that increased compulsion leads to improved readmission outcomes or to disengagement from services in patients with psychosis over 36 months. The level of persisting clinical follow-up was much higher than expected, irrespective of CTO status, and could partly account for the absence of CTO effect. The findings from our 36-month follow-up support our original findings that CTOs do not provide patient benefits, and the continued high level of their use should be reviewed. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research.

Associations Between Continuity of Care and Patient Outcomes in Mental Health Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE Research investigating the association between continuity of care (CoC) and patient outcomes in mental health care is limited. A previous review (1970-2002) concluded that evidence for an association between CoC and outcomes was inconsistent and limited. This systematic review, conducted a decade later, provides an update. METHODS Searches (1950-2014) were conducted on MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Included studies used a clearly identified measure of CoC and examined its relation to an outcome among adults (ages 18-65). Only English-language publications were included. RESULTS A total of 984 studies were identified that measured CoC. Eighteen met inclusion criteria, and 13 found an association between CoC and an outcome. As found in the previous review, studies reported conflicting results for the most frequently examined outcomes (hospitalization, symptom severity, social functioning, and service satisfaction). Little consistency was found between studies in choice of CoC measures and outcomes. Studies varied markedly in quality. Two of the three studies rated as good quality reported significant associations between CoC and social functioning. Compared with older studies, studies published since the previous systematic review (2002-2014) found a larger proportion of significant associations. CONCLUSIONS Little consistency was found in the way CoC was measured, which made it difficult to compare studies. Therefore, clear evidence about the association between CoC and outcomes remains limited. Results in regard to social functioning are encouraging. However, in order for conclusions to be made, researchers need to be more consistent with the measures they choose to allow comparison of studies.

Does depression treatment improve the survival of depressed patients with cancer? A long-term follow-up of participants in the SMaRT Oncology-2 and 3 trials

BACKGROUND Comorbid major depression has been associated with worse survival in patients with cancer. However, we do not know if treating depression improves survival. In the SMaRT Oncology-2 (good prognosis cancers) and SMaRT Oncology-3 (lung cancer, a poor prognosis cancer) trials, we found that a depression treatment programme, Depression Care for People with Cancer (DCPC), was effective in reducing comorbid major depression. In this analysis, we aimed to identify whether DCPC also had an effect on survival. METHODS The trials were conducted in three cancer centres and their associated clinics in Scotland, UK. In SMaRT Oncology-2, outpatients with good prognosis cancers and major depression were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to DCPC or usual care, with stratification (by trial centre) and minimisation (by age, primary cancer, and sex) with allocation concealment. In SMaRT Oncology-3, outpatients with lung cancer and major depression were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to DCPC or usual care with stratification (by trial centre) and minimisation (by age, sex, and cancer type) with allocation concealment. For this analysis, we obtained long-term data on deaths (all causes) in the SMaRT Oncology-2 and 3 trial participants, censored at July 31, 2015, and analysed survival as a trial outcome. We estimated unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each trial using Cox regression, and pooled the log HRs in a fixed-effects meta-analysis. FINDINGS We recruited 642 participants; between May 12, 2008, and May 13, 2011, 500 participants were recruited to the SMaRT Oncology-2 trial and between Jan 5, 2009, and Sept 9, 2011, 142 participants were recruited to the SMaRT Oncology-3 trial. We followed up SMaRT Oncology-2 and SMaRT Oncology-3 participants for a median of 5 years and 1 year, respectively. 135 (27%) of 500 SMaRT Oncology-2 participants and 114 (80%) of 142 SMaRT Oncology-3 participants died within this period. We found no significant effect of DCPC on survival in the total follow-up period for either SMaRT Oncology 2 (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·72-1·42, p=0·93) or SMaRT Oncology-3 (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·56-1·18, p=0·28; pooled HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·72-1·18, p=0·51). INTERPRETATION DCPC is highly effective in improving depression and quality of life in depressed patients with cancer, but there was no evidence for a significant effect on survival. Despite the absence of an effect on length of life, the management of depression remains important for its beneficial effect on quality of life. FUNDING NIHR CLAHRC Oxford, Cancer Research UK, and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government.

Discharge pathways and relapse following treatment from early intervention in psychosis services

Background Early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services are the dominant service model in the treatment of first-episode psychosis. They are a time-limited intervention and little is known about discharge destinations and outcomes once EIP treatment has concluded. Aims To understand discharge pathways and predictors of relapse in an EIP service. Method We collected data on all patients with an electronic health record treated by EIP services in Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust in the UK between 12 January 2006 and 7 March 2017 (n = 701). Our primary outcomes were discharge destination at end of treatment and relapse. Results Most patients (83.5%) were discharged to primary care. Transfer to secondary care was associated with previous in-patient admissions (odds ratio (OR) = 1.92, 95% CI 1.54–2.39) and longer EIP treatment (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.03–1.06). Relapse rate was highest shortly after leaving EIP services. Relapse was associated with transfer to secondary care (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.75, 95% CI 1.75–4.31), higher deprivation (HR = 1.03, 95% CI, 1.01–1.05), a substance misuse disorder (HR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.01–3.26) and a comorbid diagnosis of a personality disorder (HR = 2.96, 95% CI 1.39–6.29). Conclusions Most patients treated by the EIP service in Oxfordshire did not receive ongoing mental healthcare from secondary mental health services. We identified high deprivation and those with substance misuse problems or personality disorders as EIP populations with a high risk of relapse. Declaration of interest None.

Street triage services in England: service models, national provision and the opinions of police

Aims and method Street triage services are increasingly common and part of standard responses to mental health crises in the community, but little is understood about them. We conducted a national survey of mental health trusts to gather detailed information regarding street triage services alongside a survey of Thames Valley police officers to ascertain their views and experiences. Results Triage services are available in most areas of the country and are growing in scope. There is wide variation in levels of funding and modes of operation, including hours covered. Police officers from our survey overwhelmingly support such services and would like to see them expanded. Clinical implications Mental health crises now form a core part of policing and there are compelling reasons for the support of specialist services. Recent changes to the law have heightened this need, with a requirement for specialist input before a Section 136 is enacted. Those who have experienced triage services report it as less stigmatising and traumatic than a traditional approach, but there remains little evidence on which to base decisions. Declaration of interest None.

A web-based clinical decision tool to support treatment decision-making in psychiatry: a pilot focus group study with clinicians, patients and carers

BackgroundTreatment decision tools have been developed in many fields of medicine, including psychiatry, however benefits for patients have not been sustained once the support is withdrawn. We have developed a web-based computerised clinical decision support tool (CDST), which can provide patients and clinicians with continuous, up-to-date, personalised information about the efficacy and tolerability of competing interventions. To test the feasibility and acceptability of the CDST we conducted a focus group study, aimed to explore the views of clinicians, patients and carers.MethodsThe CDST was developed in Oxford. To tailor treatments at an individual level, the CDST combines the best available evidence from the scientific literature with patient preferences and values, and with patient medical profile to generate personalised clinical recommendations. We conducted three focus groups comprising of three different participant types: consultant psychiatrists, participants with a mental health diagnosis and/or experience of caring for someone with a mental health diagnosis, and primary care practitioners and nurses. Each 1-h focus group started with a short visual demonstration of the CDST. To standardise the discussion during the focus groups, we used the same topic guide that covered themes relating to the acceptability and usability of the CDST. Focus groups were recorded and any identifying participant details were anonymised. Data were analysed thematically and managed using the Framework method and the constant comparative method.ResultsThe focus groups took place in Oxford between October 2016 and January 2017. Overall 31 participants attended (12 consultants, 11 primary care practitioners and 8 patients or carers). The main themes that emerged related to CDST applications in clinical practice, communication, conflicting priorities, record keeping and data management. CDST was considered a useful clinical decision support, with recognised value in promoting clinician-patient collaboration and contributing to the development of personalised medicine. One major benefit of the CDST was perceived to be the open discussion about the possible side-effects of medications. Participants from all the three groups, however, universally commented that the terminology and language presented on the CDST were too medicalised, potentially leading to ethical issues around consent to treatment.ConclusionsThe CDST can improve communication pathways between patients, carers and clinicians, identifying care priorities and providing an up-to-date platform for implementing evidence-based practice, with regard to prescribing practices.