RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The community treatment order (CTO) is designed to deliver mental healthcare in the community and has been introduced in around 75 jurisdictions worldwide. It constitutes a legal obligation in which individuals with severe mental illness must adhere to out-of-hospital treatment plans. Despite intense criticism and the debated nature of published evidence, it has emerged as a clinical and policy response to frequent hospital readmissions and to enhance adherence in cases where there is refusal of pharmacological treatments. This systematic review outlines findings on CTO long-term adherence, after mandatory outpatient treatment has ended, in studies that include people with psychiatric disorders. METHOD: Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a review of published articles from PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to January 15, 2023. We included studies that assessed adherence after CTO ends. The study is registered with PROSPERO number CRD42022360879. RESULTS: Six independent studies analyzing the main indicators of long adherence: engagement with services and medication adherence, were included. The average methodological quality of the studies included is fair. Long-term adherence was assessed over a period ranging from 11 to 28 months. Only two studies reported a statistically significant improvement. Regarding the remaining studies, no positive correlation was observed, except for certain subgroup samples, while in one study, medication adherence decreased. CONCLUSION: Scientific evidence supporting the hypothesis that CTO has a positive role on long-term adherence post-obligation is currently not sufficient. Given the importance of modern recovery-oriented approaches and the coercive nature of compulsory outpatient treatment, it is necessary that future studies ensure the role of CTO in effectively promoting adherence.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIMS: Community treatment orders have been introduced in many jurisdictions with increasing use over time. We conducted a rapid umbrella review to synthesise the quantitative and qualitative evidence from systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of their potential harms and benefits. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO for relevant systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. Where available, participants on community treatment orders were compared with controls receiving voluntary psychiatric treatment. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023398767) and the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/zeq35). RESULTS: In all, 17 publications from 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative synthesis of data from different systematic reviews was not possible. There were mixed findings on the effects of community treatment orders on health service use, and clinical, psychosocial or forensic outcomes. Whereas uncontrolled evidence suggested benefits, results were more equivocal from controlled studies and randomised controlled trials showed no effect. Any changes in health service use took several years to become apparent. There was evidence that better targeting of community treatment order use led to improved outcomes. Although there were other benefits, such as in mortality, findings were mostly rated as suggestive using predetermined and standardised criteria. Qualitative findings suggested that family members and clinicians were generally positive about the effect of community treatment orders but those subjected to them were more ambivalent. Any possible harms were under-researched, particularly in quantitative designs. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the benefits of community treatment orders remains inconclusive. At the very least, use should be better targeted to people most likely to benefit. More quantitative research on harms is indicated.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Community treatment orders (CTOs) have been associated with reduced crime/victimization-risk. Australia's ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) enabled patient-rights-advocacy to limit CTO-assignment to persons lacking decision-making-capacity. This effort was accompanied by a 15% reduction in CTO-utilization. Has this change affected crime/victimization-involvements of patients with schizophrenia-diagnoses? In Victoria Australia, the study considers crime/victimization-involvement among three patient-groups recruited with the same sampling-algorithm in the decade before (2000-2009, N = 14,711) and after (2010-2019, N = 10,702) CRPD-ratification. Each group is its own-control. Each group's positive-outcome across decades would be "no increase" in crime/victimization-involvement or in the ratio of the group's incident-rates to the State's. Following CRPD-ratification, first-hospitalized-patients with at least one CTO-assignment doubled their involvement in major crime-perpetrations (from 13% to 27%), non-CTO-hospitalized-patients almost doubled (from 10% to 18%), and 11% of outpatients were involved when none were before. Overall, a third (34%) were victimized-by-major-crime up from 28%, with 25% of outpatients experiencing victimization when none had before. Increases were most evident in major-crimes, led by assaults/abductions. Capacity-constraints on compulsory-treatment are associated with increases in crime/victimization-involvement, a transfer of responsibility for patients with schizophrenia-diagnoses from the mental-health-system to the criminal-justice-system, validation of dangerousness stereotypes, and growing negative family impact.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Assignment to a community treatment order (CTO) has been associated with reduced mortality risk. In Victoria Australia civil-rights enhancements involving capacity to refuse involuntary treatment have contributed to a 15% reduction between 2010 and 2019 in CTO assignments among first hospitalized patients with Schizophrenia diagnoses. Has this change impacted patient mortality risk? Study Design: This study considered mortality-risk between 2010 and 2019 for 3 patient groups with schizophrenia diagnoses: All 4848 hospitalized patients who were assigned to a CTO for the first time in the period; 3988 matched and randomly selected patients, who were first hospitalized in the decade, without CTO assignment; and 1675 never hospitalized or CTO-assigned outpatients. Deaths of Schizophrenic patients in each group were evaluated against expected deaths given standardized mortality ratios for Victoria. Logistic regression was used to evaluate mortality risk for each treatment group while taking account of race, demographics, differential access to initial diagnoses of life-threatening physical illness, mental health service resources, and indicators of social disadvantage. Study Results: A total of 78% of the 777 deaths of schizophrenia patients in all 3 groups were premature. The 2 hospitalized groups did not differ in mortality risk. Among Victoria's 2010-2019 outpatients (inclusive of treatment refusers with a recorded service contact), 16.2% had a Schizophrenia diagnosis-up from 0.2% in 2000-2009, the prior decade. Outpatients with Schizophrenia were at 48% greater risk of death than individuals in the hospitalized groups, taking all the afore mentioned risk factors into account. Conclusions: Reductions in CTO utilization associated with potential treatment refusals of involuntary community-treatment supervision, seem to have increased mortality risk for this vulnerable population. The line between civil-rights protection and abandonment has been blurred.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Capacity-based mental health legislation was introduced in Norway on 1 September 2017. The aim was to increase the autonomy of patients with severe mental illness and to bring mental health care in line with human rights.  The aim of this study is to explore patient experiences of how far the new legislation has enabled them to be involved in decisions on their treatment after they were assessed as capable of giving consent and had their community treatment order (CTO) revoked due to the change in the legislation. METHOD: Individual in-depth interviews were conducted from September 2019 to March 2020 with twelve people with experience as CTO patients. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis inspired by hermeneutics. RESULTS: Almost all interviewees were receiving the same health care over two years after their CTO was terminated. Following the new legislation, they found it easier to be involved in treatment decisions when off a CTO than they had done in periods without a CTO before the amendment. Being assessed as having capacity to consent had enhanced their autonomy, their dialogues and their feeling of being respected in encounters with health care personnel. However, several participants felt insecure in such encounters and some still felt passive and lacking in initiative due to their previous experiences of coercion. They were worried about becoming acutely ill and again being subjected to involuntary treatment. CONCLUSION: The introduction of capacity-based mental health legislation seems to have fulfilled the intention that treatment and care should, as far as possible, be provided in accordance with patients' wishes. Systematic assessment of capacity to consent seems to increase the focus on patients' condition, level of functioning and opinions in care and treatment. Stricter requirements for health care providers to find solutions in cooperation with patients seem to lead to new forms of collaboration between patients and health care personnel, where patients have become more active participants in their own treatment and receive help to make more informed choices.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Outpatient civil commitment (OCC) requires the provision of needed-treatment, as a less restrictive alternative (LRA) to psychiatric-hospitalization in order to protect against imminent-threats to health and safety associated with severe mental illness (SMI). OCC-reviews aggregating all studies report inconsistent outcomes and interpret such as intervention failure. This review, considering those studies whose outcome criteria are consistent with the provisions of OCC-law, seeks to determine OCC-effectiveness in meeting its legislated objectives. This review incorporated studies from previous systematic-reviews, used their search methodology, and added investigations through August 2020. Selected OCC-studies evaluated samples of all eligible patients in a jurisdiction. Their outcome-measures were threats to health or safety or the receipt of needed-treatment exclusive of post-OCC-assignment- hospitalization, the latter being the OCC-default for providing needed-treatment in the absence of an LRA and dependent on bed-availability. A study's evidence-quality was evaluated with the Berkeley Evidence Ranking and the New Castle Ottawa systems. Thirty-nine OCC-outcome-studies in six-outcome-areas directly addressed OCC-statute objectives: 21 considered imminent threats to health and safety, 10 compliance with providing needed-treatment, and 8 conformity to the LRA-standard. With the top evidence-rank equal to one, the studies M = 2.55. OCC-assignment was associated with reducing mortality-risk, increasing access to acute-medical-care, and reducing risks of violence and victimization. It enabled reaching these objectives as a LRA to hospitalization and facilitated the use of community-services by individuals refusing such assistance when outside of OCC-supervision. OCC's appears to enable recovery by reducing potentially life-altering health and safety risks associated with SMI.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Australia and New Zealand have some of the highest rates of compulsory community treatment order use worldwide. There are also concerns that people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds may have higher rates of community treatment orders. We therefore assessed the health service, clinical and psychosocial outcomes of compulsory community treatment and explored if culturally and linguistically diverse, indigenous status or other factors predicted community treatment orders. METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2020: PubMed/Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We included any study conducted in Australia or New Zealand that compared people on community treatment orders for severe mental illness with controls receiving voluntary psychiatric treatment. Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessing study quality using Joanna Briggs Institute scales. RESULTS: A total of 31 publications from 12 studies met inclusion criteria, of which 24 publications could be included in a meta-analysis. Only one was from New Zealand. People who were male, single and not engaged in work, study or home duties were significantly more likely to be subject to a community treatment order. In addition, those from a culturally and linguistically diverse or migrant background were nearly 40% more likely to be on an order. Indigenous status was not associated with community treatment order use in Australia and there were no New Zealand data. Community treatment orders did not reduce readmission rates or bed-days at 12-month follow-up. There was evidence of increased benefit in the longer-term but only after a minimum of 2 years of use. Finally, people on community treatment orders had a lower mortality rate, possibly related to increased community contacts. CONCLUSION: People from culturally and linguistically diverse or migrant backgrounds are more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. However, the evidence for effectiveness remains inconclusive and limited to orders of at least 2 years' duration. The restrictive nature of community treatment orders may not be outweighed by the inconclusive evidence for beneficial outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Sexually violent predator (SVP) statutes are unique in that these laws allow for the indefinite civil psychiatric commitment of sex offenders after their criminal sentences have been served. In addition to the high cost of psychiatric hospitalization, recently observed low base rates of sexual recidivism of sex offenders released from custody suggest that, in select SVP cases, a collaborative justice model of outpatient placement may be feasible in lieu of lengthy and costly placement in state hospitals. Given its position as one of the states with a large number of SVP commitments, California offers an opportunity to implement a collaborative justice model for adult sex offenders found to meet SVP criteria. In this article, a template for such a model is suggested. Admittedly, this model faces multiple obstacles, both within the judicial system and in the public arena. Nonetheless, public concerns may be mitigated through high-control parole plus additional treatment and controls, interim halfway house placement, and community prosocial support systems.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Compulsory treatment in patients' homes (CTH) will be introduced in the new Dutch mental health legislation. The aim of this study is to identify the opinions of mental health workers in the Netherlands on compulsory community treatment (CCT), and particularly on compulsory treatment in the patients' home. METHODS: This is a mixed methods study, comprising a semi-structured interview and a survey. Forty mental health workers took part in the semi-structured interview about CCT and 20 of them, working in outpatient services, also completed a questionnaire about CTH. Descriptive analyses were performed of indicated (dis) advantages and problems of CCT and of mean scores on the CTH questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall, the mental health workers seemed to have positive opinions on CCT. With respect to CTH, all mean scores were in the middle of the range, possibly indicating that clinicians were uncertain regarding safety issues and potential practical problems accompanying the use of CTH. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the participating mental health workers in this study had a positive attitude towards CCT, but they seemed relative uncertain about potential possibilities and problems of working with CTH.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting and equivocal evidence for the efficacy of compulsory community treatment within Australia and overseas, but no study from Queensland. In addition, although people from Indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are over-represented in compulsory admissions to hospital, little is known about whether this also applies to compulsory community treatment. AIMS: We initially investigated whether people from Indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in terms of country of birth, or preferred language, were more likely to be on compulsory community treatment using statewide databases from Queensland. We then assessed the impact of compulsory community treatment on health service use over the following 12 months. Compulsory community treatment included both community treatment orders and forensic orders. METHODS: Cases and controls from administrative health data were matched on age, sex, diagnosis and time of hospital discharge (the index date). Multivariate analyses were used to examine potential predictors of compulsory community treatment, as well as impact on bed-days, time to readmission or contacts with public mental health services in the subsequent year. RESULTS: We identified 7432 cases and controls from January 2013 to February 2017 (total n = 14,864). Compulsory community treatment was more likely in Indigenous Queenslanders (adjusted odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval = [1.28, 1.65]) subjects coming from a culturally and linguistically diverse background (adjusted odds ratio = 1.54; 95% confidence interval = [1.37, 1.72]), or those who had a preferred language other than English (adjusted odds ratio = 1.66; 95% confidence interval = [1.30, 2.11]). While community contacts were significantly greater in patients on compulsory community treatment, there was no difference in bed-days while time to readmission was shorter. Restricting the analyses to just community treatment orders did not alter these results. CONCLUSION: In common with other coercive treatments, Indigenous Australians and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are more likely to be placed on compulsory community treatment. The evidence for effectiveness remains inconclusive.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Community treatment orders (CTOs) are legal procedures that authorise compulsory community mental health care to people affected by severe mental disorders. Nowadays, CTOs are regulated in 75 countries, with important variations in terms of legal criteria and practices. In Switzerland CTOs were introduced on the 1st January 2013, following the amendment of the Swiss Civil Code. The aim of this study was to provide a first understanding of the use of CTOs in Western Switzerland in terms of incidence and prevalence rates, population profile, orders duration and reasons for discharge. METHODS: Incidence and prevalence rates of CTOs between 2013 and 2017 were estimated. Survival analysis was used to investigate time to CTO discharge and associated factors. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with CTOs' success as reason for discharge. RESULTS: CTOs' incidence rates per 100'000 inhabitants ranged between 4.8 for 2013 and 9.6 for 2017, while their prevalence raised from 4.8 to 19.5. People placed under CTO were mainly male, in their forties, of Swiss origin, single and living independently. Primarily affected by Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders (F20-F29), they frequently presented substance use problems, and severe danger for themselves. CTOs were mainly ordered by the guardianship authority as a form of conditional release. The estimated mean time to discharge was almost three years. Not being of Swiss origin and being prescribed to take a medication were associated with longer CTO while living in hospital, as a consequence of a long-lasting hospitalisation, and having a non-medical professional in charge of the order were associated with shorter time to discharge. Neither clinical factors nor legal criteria predicted time to discharge. Moreover, spending more days under CTO increased the likelihood of success at discharge, whereas not being of Swiss origin reduced it. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the CTOs' implementation in Switzerland. CTOs prevalence increased rapidly despite the lack of evidence on positive outcomes. Our results suggested that once under CTO, it takes a long time for a patient to be released, in case of both positive and negative outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The use of compulsion has become one of the most contentious issues in psychiatry. This special edition, guest edited by Professor Steve Kisely and Professor Lisa Brophy, brings together a range of perspectives on Community Treatment Orders or outpatient commitment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Norway authorised out-patient commitment in 1961, but there is a lack of representative and complete data on the use of out-patient commitment orders. AIMS: To establish the incidence and prevalence rates on the use of out-patient commitment in Norway, and how these vary across service areas. Further, to study variations in out-patient commitment across service areas, and use of in-patient services before and after implementation of out-patient commitment orders. Finally, to identify determinants for the duration of out-patient commitment orders and time to readmission. METHOD: Retrospective case register study based on medical files of all patients with an out-patient commitment order in 2008-2012 in six catchment areas in Norway, covering one-third of the Norwegian population aged 18 years or more. For a subsample of patients, we recorded use of in-patient care 3 years before and after their first-ever out-patient commitment. RESULTS: Annual incidence varied between 20.7 and 28.4, and prevalence between 36.5 and 48.9, per 100 000 population aged 18 years or above. Rates differed significantly between catchment areas. Mean out-patient commitment duration was 727 days (s.d. = 889). Use of in-patient care decreased significantly in the 3 years after out-patient commitment compared with the 3 years before. Use of antipsychotic medication through the whole out-patient commitment period and fewer in-patient episodes in the 3 years before out-patient commitment predicted longer time to readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanisms behind the pronounced variations in use of out-patient commitment between sites call for further studies. Use of in-patient care was significantly reduced in the 3 years after a first-ever out-patient commitment order was made. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: This study examined hospitalizations for individuals receiving assisted outpatient treatment (AOT), some of whom also received assertive community treatment (ACT). We examined whether participation in AOT, as well as in AOT paired with ACT services, was associated with reduced hospitalizations. METHODS: Data were collected for 74 people who were receiving AOT for at least 6 months. Comparisons were made between those receiving AOT with ACT and those receiving AOT without ACT. Changes were examined in number and days of hospitalization before, during, and after AOT on an annualized basis. RESULTS: AOT was associated with reduced hospitalizations and hospital days during and after the court order. Participating in AOT without ACT was associated with fewer hospitalizations during and after AOT and fewer days hospitalized after the court order ended. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals whose needs can be met with less intensive services while under an AOT order may not require ACT.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Despite one of the longest histories of using Outpatient Commitment (OC), little is known about the use in the Norwegian context. Reporting from the Norwegian Outpatient Commitment Study, this article aims to: establish the profile of the OC population in Norway; ascertain the legal justification for the use of OC and what OC involves for patients; investigate possible associations between selected patient and service characteristics and duration of OC, and; explore potential differences based on gender or rurality. METHODS: A retrospective multi-site study, extracting data from the medical records of all patients on OC in six large regional hospitals in 2008-12, with detailed investigation over 36 months of the subsample of patients on first ever OC-order in 2008-09. We use descriptive statistics to establish the profile of the OC population and the legal justification for and the content of OC, and logistic regression to examine factors associated with duration of OC over 36 months. RESULTS: 1414 patients were on OC over the 5 years, and 274 had their first OC in 2008-09. The sample included more men than woman, and three-quarters were diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had long service histories, including involuntary admissions. The legal justification for all OC-orders was the need for treatment, and 18% were additionally justified by dangerousness. The option to initiate OC directly from the community was not used in any of the 274 first ever OC-orders. While 98% of patients were prescribed psychotropic medication, under half had an Involuntary Treatment Order, which under the Norwegian OC regime is required in addition to the OC-order to oblige patients to accept treatment (usually medication). 60% of patients had ≥2 clinical contacts monthly. There were some gender differences in descriptive analyses with men generally being worse off, but no clear pattern in terms of rurality. Patients in the sample had been on OC between one week and 20 years. The median duration of OC over 36 months was 365 days. Three factors contributed to longer duration: the use of the dangerousness criterion; a diagnosis of schizophrenia disorder, and; considerable problems with substance abuse. CONCLUSION: The characteristics of the OC population in Norway are very similar to that reported in other jurisdictions. Medication seems to be the central focus of OC, yet additional Involuntary Treatment Orders are imposed for less than half of patients. While all OC-orders were justified by the need to ensure treatment, risk seems to be a concern for a subgroup of patients who are kept on for longer. How the 2017 amendment to the mental health act, which precludes compulsion for competent patients unless danger is present, will affect OC use, remains to be seen. Further studies should specifically focus on variation in the use of OC, including at the level of individual clinicians.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: There is debate about the effectiveness of community treatment orders in the management of people with a severe mental illness. While some case-control studies suggest community treatment orders reduce hospital readmissions, three randomised controlled trials find no effects. These randomised controlled trials measure outcomes over a longer period than the community treatment order duration and assess the combined effectiveness of community treatment orders both during and after the intervention. This study examines the effectiveness of community treatment orders in a large population-based sample, restricting observation to the period under a community treatment order. METHODS: All persons ( n = 5548) receiving a community treatment order in New South Wales, Australia, over the period 2004-2009 were identified. Controls were matched using a propensity score based on demographic, clinical and prior care variables. A baseline period equal to each case's duration of treatment was constructed. Treatment effects were compared using zero-inflated negative binomial regression, adjusting for demographics, clinical characteristics and pre-community treatment order care. RESULTS: Compared to matched controls, people on community treatment orders were less likely to be readmitted (odds ratio = 0.90, 95% confidence interval = [0.84, 0.97]) and had a significantly longer time to their first readmission (incidence rate ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval = [1.36, 1.58]), fewer hospital admissions (incidence rate ratio = 0.90, 95% confidence interval = [0.84, 0.96]) and more days of community care (incidence rate ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval = [1.51, 1.59]). Increased community care and delayed first admission were found for all durations of community treatment order care. Reduced odds of readmission were limited to people with 6 months or less of community treatment order care, and reduced number of admissions and days in hospital to people with prolonged (>24 months) community treatment order care. CONCLUSION: In this large population-based study, community treatment orders increase community care and delay rehospitalisation while they are in operation. Some negative findings in this field may reflect the use of observation periods longer than the period of active intervention.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

On December 31, 2018, an incident occurred where a doctor was attacked and killed by a patient carrying a lethal weapon in the outpatients' clinic of the psychiatric department of a tertiary general hospital. The suspect was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder (manic depressive disorder) and has been hospitalized and cared for in the psychiatric ward of this hospital. This incident illustrates the necessity of more active cures and therapeutic intervention for mental patients with intellectual developmental disorders who require treatment considering the fact that a radical outcome has been caused by such a patient. However, on the other hand, there is also a need for an approach and analysis from the perspective of crime prevention for all medical departments. The reason for this is that even a tertiary general hospital equipped with the largest human resources, medical devices, facilities, and so forth, is susceptible to violence. As for illegal actions perpetrated against health and medical service personnel in medical institutions, such as verbal abuse, assault, injury, etc. there have neither been understanding shown for the current extent of damage in detail, nor discussions of active institutional improvement related to the seriousness of the act. It can be said that violence in the field of medical treatment is a realm requiring serious discussion and appropriate remedial actions. This is because when such incidents take place, if a patient who is supposed to get treatment from the damaged health care provider is in an urgent situation or on the waiting list of serious cases, he or she could suffer serious damage caused by deprivation of treatment opportunity, or secondary damage might be caused to the patient and/or a guardian who can hardly have an opportunity to take action. Accordingly, in this review, we would like to help create the necessary conditions for both health and medical service personnel and patients/guardians, respectively, to provide and receive medical treatment in a more secure environment. Therefore, objective assessment of the institution and issues relating to this aforementioned incident and general cases of violence occurring in medical institutions, and by suggesting legal and institutional improvements and solutions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) is an outpatient court-ordered treatment for people with severe mental illness (SMI) whose care needs are often unmet in the community due, in part, to treatment non-adherence. AOT is controversial, and the goal of this review is to provide an update on recent research, the status of AOT in the United States, and future directions for research and implementation. RECENT FINDINGS: Several recent studies have demonstrated that it is not just a lack of access to appropriately intensive care that prevents some individuals with SMI from engaging in and benefiting from treatment and that AOT can improve engagement and patient outcomes over and above the provision of care. The future of AOT in the United States is still somewhat uncertain and will largely depend on the effectiveness and sustainability of the SAMHSA AOT grant programs. Future research efforts should investigate the conditions under which and for whom AOT can be most effective, to help avoid poor outcomes for this vulnerable population.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Mental health courts and assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) are tools to help people with serious mental illness engage in treatment and avoid or reduce institutionalization. As both programs become increasingly prevalent, questions remain about whether people with severe mental illness who receive AOT have the same characteristics, histories, and service needs as those who participate in mental health courts. If there are differences, each program may require assessments and interventions tailored to the specific characteristics and needs of participants. METHODS: This study examined administrative criminal justice and mental health services data for 261 people with serious mental illness who participated in AOT, a mental health court, or both over seven years. RESULTS: Three percent of the sample participated in both programs. Compared with participants in mental health court, participants in AOT were older, less likely to have an alcohol use disorder, and more likely to have a schizophrenia spectrum disorder than a bipolar disorder. The participants' histories of crisis mental health service utilization, hospitalization, and incarceration prior to program entry varied significantly by program. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that there are differences among individuals with serious mental illness who are served by AOT and mental health court programs. AOT participants had greater engagement with mental health services, and a significant portion of AOT participants also had a prior criminal history that placed them at risk of future justice involvement. Program administrators need to recognize and address the clinical and criminogenic needs that place individuals at risk of becoming hospitalized and incarcerated.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This study considers whether, in an easy access single-payer health care system, patients placed on outpatient commitment-community treatment orders (CTOs) in Victoria Australia-are more likely to access acute medical care addressing physical illness than voluntary patients with and without severe mental illness. METHOD: For years 2000 to 2010, the study compared acute medical care access of 27,585  severely mentally ill psychiatrically hospitalized patients (11,424 with and 16,161 without CTO exposure) and 12,229 never psychiatrically hospitalized outpatients (individuals with less morbidity risk as they were not considered to have severe mental illness). Logistic regression was used to determine the influence of the CTO on the likelihood of receiving a diagnosis of physical illness requiring acute care. RESULTS: Validating their shared and elevated morbidity risk, 53% of each hospitalized cohort accessed acute care compared to 32% of outpatients during the decade. While not under mental health system supervision, however, the likelihood that a CTO patient would receive a physical illness diagnosis was 31% lower than for non-CTO patients, and no different from lower morbidity-risk outpatients without severe mental illness. While, under mental health system supervision, the likelihood that CTO patients would receive a physical illness diagnosis was 40% greater than non-CTO patients and 5.02 times more likely than outpatients were. Each CTO episode was associated with a 4.6% increase in the likelihood of a member of the CTO group receiving a diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Mental health system involvement and CTO supervision appeared to facilitate access to physical health care in acute care settings for patients with severe mental illness, a group that has, in the past, been subject to excess morbidity and mortality.

Asunto(s)