Characteristics of people on community treatment orders in Australia: Data from the 2010 National Survey of High Impact Psychosis

Objective: Existing evidence on factors associated with community treatment order placement is largely restricted to administrative data. We utilised the data from a large nationally representative sample to compare the demographic, clinical, social functioning, substance use and service utilisation profiles of people living with psychosis under community treatment orders with those who were not. Methods: Participants were grouped based on whether they had been subject to a community treatment order in the past 12 months or not. We conducted logistic regressions to examine demographic, clinical, social functioning, substance use and service utilisation profiles associated with the two groups. Results: People who had recently been subject to community treatment orders were more likely to be treated with long-acting injectable antipsychotics and lacked insight but were less likely to report suicidal ideation. They also had higher psychiatric inpatient admission rates but a lower frequency of general practitioner visits. Conclusion: People on community treatment orders in Australia may differ from those who are not under a community treatment order in their treatment needs. Resources and care provision must match the needs of this particularly vulnerable group.

Characteristics of people on long-acting injectable antipsychotics in Australia: Data from the 2010 National Survey of High Impact Psychosis

Objective: This study investigates (1) the proportion of people with psychosis who are on long-acting injectable antipsychotics; (2) the difference in the demographic, clinical, substance use and adverse drug reaction profiles of people taking long-acting injectables compared to oral antipsychotics; and (3) the differences in the same profiles of those on first-generation antipsychotic versus second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectables. Methods: Data were collected as part of the Survey of High Impact Psychosis. For this study, participants with diagnoses of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were on any antipsychotic medication were included ( N = 1049). Results: Nearly a third (31.5%) of people with psychosis were on long-acting injectables, of whom 49.7% were on first-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectables and 47.9% were on second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectables. This contrasts with oral antipsychotics where there was a higher utilisation of second-generation antipsychotics (86.3%). Of note, compared to those on the oral formulation, people on long-acting injectables were almost four times more likely to be under a community treatment order. Furthermore, people on long-acting injectables were more likely to have a longer duration of illness, reduced degree of insight, increased cognitive impairment as well as poor personal and social functioning. They also reported more adverse drug reactions. Compared to those on first-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectables, people on SGA long-acting injectables were younger and had had a shorter duration of illness. They were also more likely to experience dizziness and increased weight, but less likely to experience muscle stiffness or tenseness. Conclusion: Long-acting injectable use in Australia is associated with higher rates of community treatment order use, as well as poorer insight, personal and social performance, and greater cognitive impairment. While long-acting injectables may have the potential to improve the prognosis of people with psychosis, a better understanding of the choices behind the utilisation of long-acting injectable treatment in Australia is urgently needed.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors and outcomes of community treatment orders in Australia and New Zealand

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.

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

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.

The impact of substance use on treatment as a compulsory patient

Objectives: This paper considers the impact of having a diagnosis of substance use disorder on the utilisation of compulsory orders under the Victorian Mental Health Act (2014). Methods: We analysed the subsequent treatment episodes over 2 years of people who had been on a community treatment order for at least 3 months and determined the odds of a further treatment order if there was a diagnosis of substance use at or about the time the index community treatment order ended. Results: An additional diagnosis of a substance use disorder was coded in 47.7% and was associated with significantly increased odds of a subsequent treatment order in the following 2 years for those with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia (AOR = 3.03, p<0.001) and ‘other’ disorders (AOR = 11.60, p=0.002). Those with a main diagnosis of mood disorder had a significant increase in odds for an inpatient treatment order if there was an additional substance use disorder diagnosis (AOR = 3.81, p=0.006). Conclusions: Having an additional diagnosis of substance use disorder was associated with increased likelihood of being placed on an order. This study supports greater emphasis being given to treatment of substance use concurrently with that of mental illness.

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

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.

Community treatment orders increase community care and delay readmission while in force: Results from a large population-based study

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.

Misrepresenting community treatment orders

Objectives: To explore a contradiction between evidence suggesting community treatment order (CTO) ineffectiveness and clinical experience. Conclusions: The literature pertaining to CTOs actually provides an evidence base for both positions. The headline that three randomised controlled trials and subsequent meta-analyses fail to demonstrate significant differences between groups reflects selection bias. A case may still be made for CTOs.