scholarly journals Use of community treatment orders and their outcomes: an observational study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 1-76
Author(s):  
Scott Weich ◽  
Craig Duncan ◽  
Liz Twigg ◽  
Orla McBride ◽  
Helen Parsons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Local Area ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Community Treatment Orders ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Local Areas ◽  
Treatment Order ◽  
Community Treatment Order

Background Community treatment orders are widely used in England. It is unclear whether their use varies between patients, places and services, or if they are associated with better patient outcomes. Objectives To examine variation in the use of community treatment orders and their associations with patient outcomes and health-care costs. Design Secondary analysis using multilevel statistical modelling. Setting England, including 61 NHS mental health provider trusts. Participants A total of 69,832 patients eligible to be subject to a community treatment order. Main outcome measures Use of community treatment orders and time subject to community treatment order; re-admission and total time in hospital after the start of a community treatment order; and mortality. Data sources The primary data source was the Mental Health Services Data Set. Mental Health Services Data Set data were linked to mortality records and local area deprivation statistics for England. Results There was significant variation in community treatment order use between patients, provider trusts and local areas. Most variation arose from substantially different practice in a small number of providers. Community treatment order patients were more likely to be in the ‘severe psychotic’ care cluster grouping, male or black. There was also significant variation between service providers and local areas in the time patients remained on community treatment orders. Although slightly more community treatment order patients were re-admitted than non-community treatment order patients during the study period (36.9% vs. 35.6%), there was no significant difference in time to first re-admission (around 32 months on average for both). There was some evidence that the rate of re-admission differed between community treatment order and non-community treatment order patients according to care cluster grouping. Community treatment order patients spent 7.5 days longer, on average, in admission than non-community treatment order patients over the study period. This difference remained when other patient and local area characteristics were taken into account. There was no evidence of significant variation between service providers in the effect of community treatment order on total time in admission. Community treatment order patients were less likely to die than non-community treatment order patients, after taking account of other patient and local area characteristics (odds ratio 0.69, 95% credible interval 0.60 to 0.81). Limitations Confounding by indication and potential bias arising from missing data within the Mental Health Services Data Set. Data quality issues precluded inclusion of patients who were subject to community treatment orders more than once. Conclusions Community treatment order use varied between patients, provider trusts and local areas. Community treatment order use was not associated with shorter time to re-admission or reduced time in hospital to a statistically significant degree. We found no evidence that the effectiveness of community treatment orders varied to a significant degree between provider trusts, nor that community treatment orders were associated with reduced mental health treatment costs. Our findings support the view that community treatment orders in England are not effective in reducing future admissions or time spent in hospital. We provide preliminary evidence of an association between community treatment order use and reduced rate of death. Future work These findings need to be replicated among patients who are subject to community treatment order more than once. The association between community treatment order use and reduced mortality requires further investigation. Study registration The study was approved by the University of Warwick’s Biomedical and Scientific Research Ethics Committee (REGO-2015-1623). Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals How shortcomings in the mental health system affect the use of involuntary community treatment orders

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwina M. Light ◽  
Michael D. Robertson ◽  
Philip Boyce ◽  
Terry Carney ◽  
Alan Rosen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Health System ◽  
Mental Health System ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Involuntary Treatment ◽  
Community Settings ◽  
Community Treatment Orders

Objective The aim of the present study was to examine stakeholder perspectives on how the operation of the mental health system affects the use of involuntary community treatment orders (CTOs). Methods A qualitative study was performed, consisting of semi-structured interviews about CTO experiences with 38 purposively selected participants in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Participants included mental health consumers (n = 5), carers (n = 6), clinicians (n = 15) and members of the Mental Health Review Tribunal of NSW (n = 12). Data were analysed using established qualitative methodologies. Results Analysis of participant accounts about CTOs and their role within the mental health system identified two key themes, namely that: (1) CTOs are used to increase access to services; and (2) CTOs cannot remedy non-existent or inadequate services. Conclusion The findings of the present study indicate that deficiencies in health service structures and resourcing are a significant factor in CTO use. This raises questions about policy accountability for mental health services (both voluntary and involuntary), as well as about the usefulness of CTOs, justifications for CTO use and the legal criteria regulating CTO implementation. What is known about this topic? Following the deinstitutionalisation of psychiatric services over recent decades, community settings are increasingly the focus for the delivery of mental health services to people living with severe and persistent mental illnesses. The rates of use of involuntary treatment in Australian community settings (under CTOs) vary between state and territory jurisdictions and are high by world standards; however, the reasons for variation in rates of CTO use are not well understood. What does this paper add? This paper provides an empirical basis for a link between the politics of mental health and the uptake and usefulness of CTOs. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper makes explicit the real-world demands on the mental health system and how service deficiencies are a significant determinant in the use of CTOs. Practitioners and policy makers need to be candid about system limitations and how they factor in clinical and legal justifications for using involuntary treatment. The results of the present study provide data to support advocacy to improve policy accountability and resourcing of community mental health services.

scholarly journals This strange republic of the good: Community treatment orders and their conditions

2014 ◽  
pp. 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hewitt
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Professional ◽  
Mental Health Professional ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Community Treatment Orders ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Treatment Order ◽  
Community Treatment Order

The Community Treatment Order (CTO) was introduced by the Mental Health Act  2007, and from the start, it was controversial. There is evidence that even the principle of community compulsion was opposed by a majority of psychiatrists, and it was said that many would resign rather than implement CTOs. Happily, that prediction has not been realised. In fact, it seems that many psychiatrists, and more than one Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP), have seized upon CTOs with something approaching alacrity.

scholarly journals Coercion in mental health: a trial of the effectiveness of community treatment orders and an investigation of informal coercion in community mental health care

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (21) ◽  
pp. 1-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Burns ◽  
Jorun Rugkåsa ◽  
Ksenija Yeeles ◽  
Jocelyn Catty
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Community Mental Health ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Community Treatment Orders ◽  
Informal Coercion ◽  
Treatment Order ◽  
Community Treatment Order

BackgroundCoercion comprisesformal coercionorcompulsion[treatment under a section of the Mental Health Act (MHA)] andinformal coercion(a range of treatment pressures, includingleverage). Community compulsion was introduced in England and Wales as community treatment orders (CTOs) in 2008, despite equivocal evidence of effectiveness. Little is known about the nature and operation of informal coercion.DesignThe programme comprised three studies, with associated substudies: Oxford Community Treatment Order Evaluation Trial (OCTET) – a study of CTOs comprising a randomised controlled trial comparing treatment on CTO to voluntary treatment via Section 17 Leave (leave of absence during treatment under section of the MHA), with 12-month follow-up, an economic evaluation, a qualitative study, an ethical analysis, the development of a new measure of capabilities and a detailed legal analysis of the trial design; OCTET Follow-up Study – a follow-up at 36 months; and Use of Leverage Tools to Improve Adherence in community Mental Health care (ULTIMA) – a study of informal coercion comprising a quantitative cross-sectional study of leverage, a qualitative study of patient and professional perceptions, and an ethical analysis.ParticipantsParticipants in the OCTET Study were 336 patients with psychosis diagnoses, currently admitted involuntarily and considered for ongoing community treatment under supervision. Participants in the ULTIMA Study were 417 patients from Assertive Outreach Teams, Community Mental Health Teams and substance misuse services.OutcomesThe OCTET Trial primary outcome was psychiatric readmission. Other outcomes included measures of hospitalisation, a range of clinical and social measures, and a newly developed measure of capabilities – the Oxford Capabilities Questionnaire – Mental Health. For the follow-up study, the primary outcome was the level of disengagement during the 36 months.ResultsCommunity treatment order use did not reduce the rate of readmission [(59 (36%) of 166 patients in the CTO group vs. 60 (36%) of 167 patients in the non-CTO group; adjusted relative risk 1.0 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.33)] or any other outcome. There were no differences for any subgroups. There was no evidence that it might be cost-effective. Qualitative work suggested that CTOs’ (perceived) focus on medication adherence may influence how they are experienced. No general ethical justification was found for the use of a CTO regime. At 36-month follow-up, only 19 patients (6% of 329 patients) were no longer in regular contact with services. Longer duration of compulsion was associated with longer time to disengagement (p = 0.023) and fewer periods of discontinuity (p < 0.001). There was no difference in readmission outcomes over 36 months. Patients with longer CTO duration spent fewer nights in hospital. One-third (35%) of the ULTIMA sample reported lifetime experiences of leverage, lower than in the USA (51%), but patterns of leverage experience were similar. Reporting leverage made little difference to patients’ perceived coercion. Patients’ experiences of pressure were wide-ranging and pervasive, and perceived to come from family, friends and themselves, as well as professionals. Professionals were committed to patient-centred approaches, but felt obliged to assert authority when patients relapsed. We propose a five-step framework for determining the ethical status of offers by mental health professionals and give detailed guidance for professionals about how to exercise leverage.ConclusionsCommunity Treatment Orders do not deliver clinical or social functioning benefits for patients. In the absence of further trials, moves should be made to restrict or stop their use. Informal coercion is widespread and takes different forms.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN73110773.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

scholarly journals Coercion: an understudied issue in mental health

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-222
Author(s):  
B. O’Donoghue
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Service Users ◽  
Involuntary Admission ◽  
Community Treatment Orders ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Alternative Models

Coercion in mental health services is a controversial practice, yet it is a relatively understudied area. This special themed edition draws upon research from the international community with the aim of addressing issues related to coercion and involuntary admission. The issue covers topics such as community treatment orders, service users’ perspectives, alternative models of involving service users in their treatment, and future directions for coercion research. It is hoped that this edition will encourage funding and inspire future research on this important topic.

scholarly journals Evaluating the effects of community treatment orders (CTOs) in England using the Mental Health Services Dataset (MHSDS): protocol for a national, population-based study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e024193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Weich ◽  
Craig Duncan ◽  
Kamaldeep Bhui ◽  
Alastair Canaway ◽  
David Crepaz-Keay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Data Access ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Spatial And Temporal Variation ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Advisory Group ◽  
Community Treatment Orders

IntroductionSupervised community treatment (SCT) for people with serious mental disorders has become accepted practice in many countries around the world. In England, SCT was adopted in 2008 in the form of community treatment orders (CTOs). CTOs have been used more than expected, with significant variations between people and places. There is conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of SCT; studies based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested few positive impacts, while those employing observational designs have been more favourable. Robust population-based studies are needed, because of the ethical challenges of undertaking further RCTs and because variation across previous studies may reflect the effects of sociospatial context on SCT outcomes. We aim to examine spatial and temporal variation in the use, effectiveness and cost of CTOs in England through the analysis of routine administrative data.Methods and analysisFour years of data from the Mental Health Services Dataset (MHSDS) will be analysed using multilevel models. Models based on all patients eligible for CTOs will be used to explore variation in their use. A subset of CTO-eligible patients comprising a treatment group (CTO patients) and a matched control group (non-CTO patients) will be used to examine variation in the association between CTO use and study outcomes. Primary outcome will be total time in hospital. Secondary outcomes will include time to first readmission and mortality. Outputs from these models will be used to populate predictive models of healthcare resource use.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the National Health Service Data Access and Advisory Group and Warwick University. To ensure patient confidentiality and to meet data governance requirements, analyses will be carried out in a secure microdata laboratory using de-identified data. Study findings will be disseminated through academic channels and shared with mental health policy-makers and other stakeholders.

scholarly journals Does legislative change affect the use and duration of compulsory treatment orders?

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 433-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Vine ◽  
Holly Tibble ◽  
Jane Pirkis ◽  
Fiona Judd ◽  
Matthew J Spittal
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Subsequent Treatment ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Service Utilisation ◽  
Community Treatment Orders ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Treatment Order ◽  
Community Treatment Order

Objective: Victoria, Australia, introduced reformed mental health legislation in 2014. The Act was based on a policy platform of recovery-oriented services, supported decision-making and minimisation of the use and duration of compulsory orders. This paper compares service utilisation and legal status after being on a community treatment order under the Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) with that under the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic). Methods: We obtained two distinct data sets of persons who had been on a community treatment order for at least 3 months and their subsequent treatment episodes over 2 years under the Mental Health Act and/or as an inpatient for the periods 2008–2010 (Mental Health Act 1986) and 2014–2016 (Mental Health Act 2014). The two sets were compared to assess the difference in use, duration and odds of having a further admission over 2 years. We also considered the mode of discharge – whether by the treating psychiatrist, external body or through expiry. Results: Compared with the Mental Health Act 1986, under the Mental Health Act 2014, index community treatment orders were shorter (mean 227 days compared with 335 days); there was a reduction in the mean number of community treatment orders in the 2 years following the index discharge − 1.1 compared with 1.5 (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.71, 95% confidence interval = [0.63, 0.80]) – and a 51% reduction in days on an order over 2 years. There was a reduction in the number of subsequent orders for those whose order expired or was revoked by the psychiatrist under the Mental Health Act 2014 compared to those under the Mental Health Act 1986. The number of orders which were varied to an inpatient order by the authorised psychiatrist was notably greater under the Mental Health Act 2014. Conclusion: The reformed Mental Health Act has been successful in its intent to reduce the use and duration of compulsory orders in the community. The apparent increase in return to inpatient orders raises questions regarding the intensity and effectiveness of community treatment and context of service delivery.

Rate of community treatment orders and readmission orders following reconfiguration of community mental health services

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian O’Donoghue ◽  
Lisa Brophy ◽  
Nicholas Owens ◽  
Milana Rasic ◽  
Belinda McCullough ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Community Mental Health ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Community Mental Health Services ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Community Treatment Orders

scholarly journals The Greek Hybrid Version of the Assertive Community Treatment Model: A Perspective View between Challenges and Limitations

Psych ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 792-799
Author(s):  
Vaios Peritogiannis ◽  
Fotini Tsoli
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Community Mental Health ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Assertive Community Treatment ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Community Mental Health Service ◽  
Perspective View

The Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) model of care has been long considered to be effective in the management of patients with severe mental illness (SMI) in most Western countries. The implementation of the original ACT model may be particularly challenging in rural and remote communities with small and dispersed populations and lack of adequate mental health services. Rural programs may have to adapt the model and modify the ACT fidelity standards to accommodate these limitations, and this is the rationale for the introduction of more flexible, hybrid ACT models. In rural Greece, the so called Mobile Mental Health Units (MMHUs) are well-established community mental health services. For patients with SMI that have difficulties engaging with treatment services, the new hybrid ACT model has been recently launched. The objective of this manuscript is to present the recently launched hybrid ACT model in rural areas in Greece and to explore the challenges and limitations in its implementation from the experience of a team of mental health professionals with ACT experience. Referral criteria have not been strictly set, but the number of previous relapses and hospitalizations is taken under consideration, as well as the history of poor treatment adherence and disengagement from mental health services. The main limitation in the implementation of the hybrid ACT service is that it has been introduced in several areas in the absence of a pre-existing community mental health service. This may impact referrals and limit focus on the difficult cases of patients with SMI, thus making the evaluation of the model inapplicable.

scholarly journals Community treatment orders – principles and attitudes

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 58-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vimal Kumar Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Community Treatment ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Community Treatment Orders ◽  
Expected Number ◽  
The Past ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Patient Groups ◽  
Treatment Order ◽  
Community Treatment Order

SummaryThe community treatment order (CTO) was implemented in 2008 as part of the 2007 amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983. Initially, health professionals and patient groups were sceptical about the successful implementation of CTOs. However, as more than the expected number of patients has been subjected to CTOs in the past 3 years in England and Wales, the professionals' views are shifting in favour of CTOs. More needs to be done to improve the approach and attitude of care providers so that CTOs are used in the most appropriate and effective way for the patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document