Unfinished business: Functional outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of a three-year extension of early intervention versus regular care following two years of early intervention for psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether first-episode psychosis patients receiving extended early intervention had better functional outcomes than those in regular care and to examine the predictors of functional outcomes. METHODS: This is a randomized controlled single-blind trial of 220 patients randomized after 2 years of early intervention to receive early intervention or regular care for the subsequent 3 years. Outcomes included cumulative time in functional recovery during the 3-year trial assessed using the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS); and employment/education at last assessment which were, respectively, analyzed using multiple linear regression and logistic regression, accounting for well-known predictors. Linear mixed and generalized linear models were also used to examine the course of SOFAS and employment/education over the 3-year period. RESULTS: The extended early intervention and regular care groups did not differ on time in functional recovery (mean = 50.17 weeks, SD = 46.62 vs. mean = 46.18 weeks, SD = 51.54); percent employed/in school (60.4% vs. 68.8%) or change in SOFAS or employment/education status over time. SOFAS scores were stable between years 2 and 5. Individuals with longer periods of total symptom remission experienced significantly longer periods of functional recovery and were likelier to be employed/in school. Those who had completed high school were nine times likelier to be employed/studying. CONCLUSION: Most individuals maintained functional gains accrued from 2 years of early intervention with no further improvement whether in extended early intervention or regular care. There was a gap between symptomatic and functional recovery, and one-third were unemployed/not in school at year 5. The lack of additional progress even in extended early intervention suggests that specific interventions addressing functional roles need to be provided beyond the first 2 years of early intervention. Sustaining symptom remission and high-school completion may be additional avenues for targeting functional recovery.

Improving Transfer of Care Between Psychiatrists and Residents: Participants' Perspective on the Implementation of a Handover Protocol in a Psychiatric Emergency.

OBJECTIVES: Handover refers to the transfer of information from one professional to another during transitions of care. I-PASS is a mnemonic tool which stands for Illness severity; Patient summary; Action list; Situation awareness and contingency planning; and Synthesis by receiver. It was developed to standardize the handover process. Psychiatrists, nurses, and residents at the Montreal Jewish General Hospital psychiatric emergency were trained and the I-PASS handover model was implemented. METHODS: Thirty-one psychiatrists, nurses, and residents participated in this quality improvement project. Participants filled a pre-training questionnaire to examine the baseline status of handovers before attending a training session on I-PASS. Participants then filled a second questionnaire assessing the perceived quality of the handover training session, as well as anticipated benefits and challenges of I-PASS prior to its implementation. Finally, following implementation, two focus groups were held to collect feedback from participants. RESULTS: Pre-training, most participants reported that information provided during handovers was incomplete. Training was overall much appreciated. The most significant anticipated obstacle for implementing I-PASS was lack of time to properly fill out the form. Post-implementation, participants unanimously reported an improvement in the handover process. Handovers were perceived as faster, providing all key information about patients, and the perceived quality of the information was better. CONCLUSION: Overall, the implementation of the I-PASS handover model was much appreciated by participants, who perceived that handovers were more comprehensive, efficient, and of better quality.

Suicidality Over the First 5 Years of Psychosis: Does Extending Early Intervention Have Benefits?

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether individuals with first-episode psychosis (FEP) receiving extended early intervention (EI) were less likely to experience suicidal ideation and behaviors than those transferred to regular care after 2 years of EI. Another objective was to examine the 5-year course of suicidality in FEP. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial where 220 patients were randomized after 2 years of EI to receive extended EI or regular care for the subsequent 3 years. Suicidality was rated using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Linear mixed model analysis was used to study time and group effects on suicidality. RESULTS: Extended EI and regular care groups did not differ on suicidality. There was a small decrease in suicidality over time, F(7, 1038) = 1.84, P = 0.077, with an immediate sharp decline within a month of treatment, followed by stability over the remaining 5 years. Patients who endorsed suicidality at entry (46.6%) had higher baseline positive, negative, and depressive symptoms. The 5-year course fell in 3 groups: never endorsed suicidality (33.9%), endorsed suicidality at low-risk levels (43.1%), and endorsed high-risk levels (23.0%). The high-risk group had a higher proportion of affective versus nonaffective psychosis diagnosis; higher baseline positive and depressive symptoms; higher 5-year mean depression scores, and fewer weeks of positive symptom remission over the 5-year course. CONCLUSIONS: The first month of treatment is a critical period for suicide risk in FEP. Although early reductions in suicidality are often maintained, our findings make the case for sustained monitoring for suicide risk management.

Patient satisfaction with random assignment to extended early intervention for psychosis vs regular care: Relationship with service engagement.

AIM: We investigated whether individuals varied in their satisfaction with being randomized to an extension of early intervention (EI) for psychosis or regular care after 2 years of EI, and whether satisfaction was associated with service engagement 3 years later. METHODS: Following randomization, patients (N = 220) indicated if they were happy with, unhappy or indifferent to their group assignment. Follow-up with service providers was recorded monthly. RESULTS: Patients randomized to extended EI were more likely to express satisfaction with their group assignment than those in the regular care group (88.2% vs 31.5%, χ2 = 49.96, P < .001). In the extended EI group, those happy with their assigned group were likelier to continue seeing their case manager for the entire five-year period than those who were unhappy/indifferent (χ2 = 5.61, P = .030). CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions about EI, indicated by satisfaction with being assigned to extended EI, may have lasting effects on service engagement.

Economic Evaluation of Extended Early Intervention Service vs Regular Care Following 2 Years of Early Intervention: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Cost-effectiveness studies of early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis have not included extension beyond the first 2 years. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a 3-year extension of EIS compared to regular care (RC) from the public health care payer's perspective. Following 2 years of EIS in a university setting in Montreal, Canada, patients were randomized to a 3-year extension of EIS (n = 110) or RC (n = 110). Months of total symptom remission served as the main outcome measure. Resource use and cost data for publicly covered health care services were derived mostly from administrative systems. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were produced. Relative cost-effectiveness was estimated for those with duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) of 12 weeks or less vs longer. Extended early intervention had higher costs for psychiatrist and nonphysician interventions, but total costs were not significantly different. The ICER was $1627 per month in total remission. For the intervention to have an 80% chance of being cost-effective, the decision-maker needs to be willing to pay $5942 per month of total symptom remission. DUP ≤ 12 weeks was associated with a reduction in costs of $12 276 even if no value is placed on additional months in total remission. Extending EIS for psychosis for people, such as those included in this study, may be cost-effective if the decision-maker is willing to pay a high price for additional months of total symptom remission, though one commensurate with currently funded interventions. Cost-effectiveness was much greater for people with DUP ≤12 weeks.

Comparing three-year extension of early intervention service to regular care following two years of early intervention service in first-episode psychosis: a randomized single blind clinical trial.

This study aimed to determine if, following two years of early intervention service for first-episode psychosis, three-year extension of that service was superior to three years of regular care. We conducted a randomized single blind clinical trial using an urn randomization balanced for gender and substance abuse. Participants were recruited from early intervention service clinics in Montreal. Patients (N=220), 18-35 years old, were randomized to an extension of early intervention service (EEIS; N=110) or to regular care (N=110). EEIS included case management, family intervention, cognitive behaviour therapy and crisis intervention, while regular care involved transfer to primary (community health and social services and family physicians) or secondary care (psychiatric outpatient clinics). Cumulative length of positive and negative symptom remission was the primary outcome measure. EEIS patients had a significantly longer mean length of remission of positive symptoms (92.5 vs. 63.6 weeks, t=4.47, p<0.001), negative symptoms (73.4 vs. 59.6 weeks, t=2.84, p=0.005) and both positive and negative symptoms (66.5 vs. 56.7 weeks, t=2.25, p=0.03) compared to regular care patients. EEIS patients stayed in treatment longer than regular care patients (mean 131.7 vs. 105.3 weeks, t=3.98, p<0.001 through contact with physicians; 134.8 ± 37.7 vs. 89.8 ± 55.2, t=6.45, p<0.0001 through contact with other health care providers) and received more units of treatment (mean 74.9 vs. 39.9, t=4.21, p<0.001 from physicians, and 57.3 vs. 28.2, t=4.08, p<0.001 from other health care professionals). Length of treatment had an independent effect on the length of remission of positive symptoms (t=2.62, p=0.009), while number of units of treatment by any health care provider had an effect on length of remission of negative symptoms (t=-2.70, p=0.008) as well as total symptoms (t=-2.40, p=0.02). Post-hoc analysis showed that patients randomized to primary care, based on their better clinical profile at randomization, maintained their better outcome, especially as to remission of negative symptoms, at the end of the study. These data suggest that extending early intervention service for three additional years has a positive impact on length of remission of positive and negative symptoms compared to regular care. This may have policy implications for extending early intervention services beyond the current two years.

Remission in major depressive disorder: a comparison of pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and control conditions.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the percentages of full remission in studies of patients with major depressive disorder in which pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and control conditions were directly compared. METHOD: Computerized searches of the MEDLINE and PsychINFO databases up to November 2000 were used to identify six multiple-cell randomized, controlled, double-blind trials for well-defined major depressive disorder in which medications, psychotherapy, and control conditions were directly compared and for which remission percentages were reported. RESULTS: The studies included a total of 883 outpatients with mild to moderate, primarily nonmelancholic, nonpsychotic major depressive disorder. Treatment duration ranged from 10 to 34 weeks (median=16 weeks). An intent-to-treat analysis indicated that, according to measurements by independent blind raters, antidepressant medication (tricyclic antidepressants and phenelzine) and psychotherapy (primarily cognitive behavior and interpersonal therapies) were more efficacious than control conditions, but there were no differences between active treatments. The percentages of remission for all patients randomly assigned to medication, psychotherapy, and control conditions were 46.4%, 46.3%, and 24.4%, respectively. Furthermore, significantly more patients dropped out of control conditions (54.4%) than either treatment with medication (37.1%) or psychotherapy (22.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Both antidepressant medication and psychotherapy may be considered first-line treatments for mildly to moderately depressed outpatients.

Canadian psychiatrists' current attitudes, practices, and knowledge regarding fitness to drive in individuals with mental illness: a cross-Canada survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess current attitudes, practices, and knowledge of Canadian psychiatrists regarding fitness to drive in individuals with mental illness and to explore variations according to provincial legislation. METHOD: We carried out a national cross-sectional survey, using a random sample of psychiatrists. We used a mail survey to collect data. RESULTS: In total, 248 psychiatrists participated; the response rate was 54.2% on traced subjects. The majority (64.1%) reported that they strongly agreed or agreed that addressing patients' fitness to drive is an important issue. However, only 18.0% of respondents were always aware of whether their patients were active drivers. One-fourth strongly agreed or agreed that they were confident in their ability to evaluate fitness to drive. In discretionary provinces, 29.3% of psychiatrists reported not knowing their provincial legislation, as did 14.6% of psychiatrists in mandatory provinces; of those responding, 54.0% from discretionary provinces and 2.8% from mandatory provinces gave incorrect answers. DISCUSSION: Psychiatrists' responses demonstrate a broad range of attitudes, practices, and knowledge. There appears to be a large gap between what is expected of psychiatrists and their readiness and self-perceived ability to make informed clinical decisions related to driving safety. CONCLUSION: There is a clear need for education and guidelines to assist psychiatrists in decision making about driving fitness.