A real-life observational study of the effectiveness of FACT in a Dutch mental health region.

BACKGROUND: ACT is an effective community treatment but causes discontinuity of care between acutely ill and currently stable patient groups. The Dutch variant of ACT, FACT, combines both intensive ACT treatment and care for patients requiring less intensive care at one time point yet likely to need ACT in the future. It may be hypothesised that this case mix is not beneficial for patients requiring intensive care, as other patient groups may "dilute" care provision. The effectiveness of FACT was compared with standard care, with a particular focus on possible moderating effects of patient characteristics within the case mix in FACT. METHODS: In 2002, three FACT teams were implemented in a Dutch region in which a cumulative routine outcome measurement system was in place. Patients receiving FACT were compared with patients receiving standard treatment, matched on "baseline" symptom severity and age, using propensity score matching. Outcome was the probability of being in symptomatic remission of psychotic symptoms. RESULTS: The probability of symptomatic remission was higher for SMI patients receiving FACT than for controls receiving standard treatment, but only when there was an unmet need for care with respect to psychotic symptoms (OR = 6.70, p = 0.002; 95% CI = 1.97-22.7). CONCLUSION: Compared to standard care, FACT was more rather than less effective, but only when a need for care with respect to psychotic symptoms is present. This suggests that there is no adverse effect of using broader patient mixes in providing continuity of care for all patients with severe mental illness in a defined geographical area.

An observational, "real life" trial of the introduction of assertive community treatment in a geographically defined area using clinical rather than service use outcome criteria.

INTRODUCTION: Assertive outreach methods of service delivery hold promise, but have been evaluated mostly in the context of short-lived experiments of limited sustainability and a focus on service use outcomes. The aim of the current investigation was to conduct an observational, "real life", pre-post comparison of the introduction of assertive outreach in a geographically defined area using clinical rather than service use outcome criteria. METHOD: Assertive outreach was implemented in 2002 in a catchment area of 250,000, where cumulative routine outcome measurements had been in place since 1998. Clinical outcome, defined as making a transition to meeting the recently introduced remission criterion, was compared for two non-overlapping cohorts of patients treated in the period 1998-2001 and in the period 2002-2005. RESULTS: The proportion of patients that made the transition to remission increased from 19% in the period before the introduction of assertive outreach, to 31% in the period after (OR = 2.21, 95% CI 1.03-4.78). CONCLUSION: Assertive outreach in real life routine clinical practice brings about detectable changes in clinical outcome. ACT may bring improvement to the lives of patients living in countries characterised by fragmented and hospital-based mental health services.