Clinical outcomes of Joint Crisis Plans to reduce compulsory treatment for people with psychosis: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The CRIMSON (CRisis plan IMpact: Subjective and Objective coercion and eNgagement) study is an individual level, randomised controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of Joint Crisis Plans (JCPs) with treatment as usual for people with severe mental illness. The JCP is a negotiated statement by a patient of treatment preferences for any future psychiatric emergency, when he or she might be unable to express clear views. We assessed whether the additional use of JCPs improved patient outcomes compared with treatment as usual. METHODS: Patients were eligible if they had at least one psychiatric admission in the previous 2 years and were on the Enhanced Care Programme Approach register. The study was done with 64 generic and specialist community mental health teams in four English mental health care provider organisations (trusts). Hypotheses tested were that, compared with the control group, the intervention group would experience: fewer compulsory admissions (primary outcome); fewer psychiatric admissions; shorter psychiatric stays; lower perceived coercion; improved therapeutic relationships; and improved engagement. We stratified participants by centre. The research team but not participants nor clinical staff were masked to allocation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number ISRCTN11501328. FINDINGS: 569 participants were randomly assigned (285 to the intervention group and 284 to the control group). No significant treatment effect was seen for the primary outcome (56 [20%] sectioned in the control group and 49 [18%] in the JCP group; odds ratio 0·90 [95% CI 0·58-1·39, p=0·63]) or any secondary outcomes, with the exception of an improved secondary outcome of therapeutic relationships (17·3 [7·6] vs 16·0 [7·1]; adjusted difference -1·28 [95% CI -2·56 to -0·01, p=0·049]). Qualitative data supported this finding. INTERPRETATION: Our findings are inconsistent with two earlier JCP studies, and show that the JCP is not significantly more effective than treatment as usual. There is evidence to suggest the JCPs were not fully implemented in all study sites, and were combined with routine clinical review meetings which did not actively incorporate patients' preferences. The study therefore raises important questions about implementing new interventions in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research.

Joint crisis plans for people with borderline personality disorder: feasibility and outcomes in a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with borderline personality disorder frequently experience crises. To date, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of crisis interventions for this population have been published. AIMS: To examine the feasibility of recruiting and retaining adults with borderline personality disorder to a pilot RCT investigating the potential efficacy and cost-effectiveness of using a joint crisis plan. METHOD: An RCT of joint crisis plans for community-dwelling adults with borderline personality disorder (trial registration: ISRCTN12440268). The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of self-harming behaviour over the 6-month period following randomisation. Secondary outcomes included depression, anxiety, engagement and satisfaction with services, quality of life, well-being and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In total, 88 adults out of the 133 referred were eligible and were randomised to receive a joint crisis plan in addition to treatment as usual (TAU; n = 46) or TAU alone (n = 42). This represented approximately 75% of our target sample size and follow-up data were collected on 73 (83.0%) participants. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed no significant differences in the proportion of participants who reported self-harming (odds ratio (OR) = 1.9, 95% CI 0.53-6.5, P = 0.33) or the frequency of self-harming behaviour (rate ratio (RR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.34-1.63, P = 0.46) between the two groups at follow-up. No significant differences were observed between the two groups on any of the secondary outcome measures or costs. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to recruit and retain people with borderline personality disorder to a trial of joint crisis plans and the intervention appears to have high face validity with this population. However, we found no evidence of clinical efficacy in this feasibility study.

Views of service users and providers on joint crisis plans: single blind randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: We report participants' and case managers' use of and views on the value of Joint Crisis Plans (JCPs), shown to reduce compulsory hospitalisation and violence. METHOD: One hundred sixty people with psychosis or bipolar disorder participated in a randomized controlled trial. Intervention group participants were interviewed on receipt of the JCP, on hospitalisation, and at 15 month follow-ups; case managers were interviewed at 15 months. RESULTS: Sixty-two of the 65 people who received a JCP (95%) were interviewed at least once. Depending on the question, 46-96% of JCP holders (N = 44) responded positively to questions concerning the value of the JCP at immediate follow up. At 15 months the proportions of positive responses to the different questions was 14-82% (N = 50). Thirty-nine to eighty-five per cent of case managers (N = 28) responded positively at 15 months. Comparing the total scores of participants who had completed both the initial and follow up questionnaires showed a shift in responses, from positive to no change, from the immediate follow up to 15 months (means 6.1 vs. 8.3, difference 2.2, 95% CI 0.8, 3.7, P = 0.003) where a higher score indicates less positive views. The two items that received highest endorsement also showed least shift over time, i.e. whether the participant would recommend the JCP to others (90% initial vs. 82% at 15 months) and whether they felt more in control of their mental health problem as a result (71% at initial vs. 56% at 15 months). Case managers at 15 months were more positive than service users, with total score means of 5 vs. 7.8 (difference -2.8, 95% CI -4.5, -1.2, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The best supported hypothesis was that participants felt more in control of their mental health problem. Together with the previously reported outcomes, this suggests JCPs empower their holders to obtain their preferred care and treatment in a crisis. Further research is needed to more clearly identify the mechanisms of action of JCPs and how their initial positive impact can be sustained.

Randomised controlled trial of joint crisis plans to reduce compulsory treatment for people with psychosis: economic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Compulsory admission to psychiatric hospitals may be distressing, disruptive to patients and families, and associated with considerable cost to the health service. Improved patient experience and cost reductions could be realised by providing cost-effective crisis planning services. METHODS: Economic evaluation within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing Joint Crisis Plans (JCP) plus treatment as usual (TAU) to TAU alone for patients aged over 16, with at least one psychiatric hospital admission in the previous two years and on the Enhanced Care Programme Approach register. JCPs, containing the patient's treatment preferences for any future psychiatric emergency, are a form of crisis intervention that aim to mitigate the negative consequences of relapse, including hospital admission and use of coercion. Data were collected at baseline and 18-months after randomisation. The primary outcome was admission to hospital under the Mental Health Act. The economic evaluation took a service perspective (health, social care and criminal justice services) and a societal perspective (additionally including criminal activity and productivity losses). FINDINGS: The addition of JCPs to TAU had no significant effect on compulsory admissions or total societal cost per participant over 18-months follow-up. From the service cost perspective, however, evidence suggests a higher probability (80%) of JCPs being the more cost-effective option. Exploration by ethnic group highlights distinct patterns of costs and effects. Whilst the evidence does not support the cost-effectiveness of JCPs for White or Asian ethnic groups, there is at least a 90% probability of the JCP intervention being the more cost-effective option in the Black ethnic group. INTERPRETATION: The results by ethnic group are sufficiently striking to warrant further investigation into the potential for patient gain from JCPs among black patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11501328.

CRIMSON [CRisis plan IMpact: Subjective and Objective coercion and eNgagement] protocol: a randomised controlled trial of joint crisis plans to reduce compulsory treatment of people with psychosis.

BACKGROUND: The use of compulsory treatment under the Mental Health Act (MHA) has continued to rise in the UK and in other countries. The Joint Crisis Plan (JCP) is a statement of service users' wishes for treatment in the event of a future mental health crisis. It is developed with the clinical team and an independent facilitator. A recent pilot RCT showed a reduction in the use of the MHA amongst service users with a JCP. The JCP is the only intervention that has been shown to reduce compulsory treatment in this way. The CRIMSON trial aims to determine if JCPs, compared with treatment as usual, are effective in reducing the use of the MHA in a range of treatment settings across the UK. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a 3 centre, individual-level, single-blind, randomised controlled trial of the JCP compared with treatment as usual for people with a history of relapsing psychotic illness in Birmingham, London and Lancashire/Manchester. 540 service users will be recruited across the three sites. Eligible service users will be adults with a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder (including bipolar disorder), treated in the community under the Care Programme Approach with at least one admission to a psychiatric inpatient ward in the previous two years. Current inpatients and those subject to a community treatment order will be excluded to avoid any potential perceived pressure to participate. Research assessments will be conducted at baseline and 18 months. Following the baseline assessment, eligible service users will be randomly allocated to either develop a Joint Crisis Plan or continue with treatment as usual. Outcome will be assessed at 18 months with assessors blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome is the proportion of service users treated or otherwise detained under an order of the Mental Health Act (MHA) during the follow-up period, compared across randomisation groups. Secondary outcomes include overall costs, service user engagement, perceived coercion and therapeutic relationships. Sub-analyses will explore the effectiveness of the JCP in reducing use of the MHA specifically for Black Caribbean and Black African service users (combined). Qualitative investigations with staff and service users will explore the acceptability of the JCPs. DISCUSSION: JCPs offer a potential solution to the rise of compulsory treatment for individuals with psychotic disorders and, if shown to be effective in this trial, they are likely to be of interest to mental health service providers worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11501328.

The effectiveness of joint crisis plans for people with borderline personality disorder: protocol for an exploratory randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a common mental disorder associated with raised mortality, morbidity and substantial economic costs. Although complex psychological interventions have been shown to be useful in the treatment of BPD, such treatments are expensive to deliver and therefore have limited availability and questionable cost-effectiveness. Less complex interventions are required for the management of BPD. A joint crisis plan (JCP) is a record containing a service user's treatment preferences for the management of future crises and is created by the service user with the help of their treating mental health team. These plans have been shown to to be an effective way of reducing compulsory treatment in people with psychosis. However, to date they have not been used with individuals with BPD. This exploratory trial will examine whether use of a JCP is an effective and cost-effective intervention for people with BPD for reducing self-harm. METHODS/DESIGN: In this single blind exploratory randomized controlled trial, a total of 120 participants (age >18 years with a primary diagnosis of DSM-IV borderline personality disorder) will be recruited from community mental health teams and, after completing a baseline assessment, will be assigned to one of two conditions: (1) a joint crisis plan, or (2) treatment as usual. Those allocated to the JCP condition will take part in a facilitated meeting, the purpose of which will be to agree the contents of the plan. Following the meeting, a typed version of the JCP will be sent to the patient and to any other individuals specified by the participant. All participants will be followed-up at 6 months. The primary outcome measures are: any self-harm event, time to first episode of self-harm and number of self-harm events over the follow-up period. Secondary outcome measures are length of time from contemplation to act of self-harm, help-seeking behaviour after self-harm, cost, working alliance, engagement with services and perceived coercion. Other outcome variables are quality of life, social impairment and satisfaction with treatment. DISCUSSION: Results of this trial will help to clarify the potential beneficial effects of JCPs for people with BPD and provide information to design a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12440268.

Joint crisis plans for people with psychosis: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost effectiveness of joint crisis plans, a form of advance agreement for people with severe mental illness. DESIGN: Single blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eight community mental health teams in southern England. PARTICIPANTS: 160 people with a diagnosis of psychotic illness or non-psychotic bipolar disorder who had been admitted to hospital at least once within the previous two years. INTERVENTION: Joint crisis plan formulated by the patient, care coordinator, psychiatrist, and project worker containing contact information, details of illnesses, treatments, relapse indicators, and advance statements of preferences for care for future relapses. Control group was standardised service information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Admission to hospital; service use over 15 months. RESULTS: Use of a joint crisis plan was associated with less service use and lower costs on average than in the standardised service information group, but differences were not significant. Total costs during follow-up were 7264 pounds sterling (10,616 euros, 13,560 dollars) for each participant with a joint crisis plan and 8359 pounds sterling (12,217 euros, 15,609 dollars) for each participant with standardised service information (mean difference 1095 pounds sterling; 95% confidence interval -2814 to 5004). Cost effectiveness acceptability curves, used to explore uncertainty in estimates of costs and effects, suggest there is a greater than 78% probability that joint crisis plans are more cost effective than standardised service information in reducing the proportion of patients admitted to hospital. CONCLUSION: Joint crisis plans produced a non-significant decrease in admissions and total costs. Though the cost estimates had wide confidence intervals, the associated uncertainty suggests there is a relatively high probability of the plans being more cost effective than standardised service information for people with psychotic disorders.

Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsory treatment in psychiatry: single blind randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a form of advance agreement for people with severe mental illness can reduce the use of inpatient services and compulsory admission or treatment. DESIGN: Single blind randomised controlled trial, with randomisation of individual patients. The investigator was blind to allocation. SETTING: Eight community mental health teams in southern England. PARTICIPANTS: 160 people with an operational diagnosis of psychotic illness or non-psychotic bipolar disorder who had experienced a hospital admission within the previous two years. INTERVENTION: The joint crisis plan was formulated by the patient, care coordinator, psychiatrist, and project worker and contained contact information, details of mental and physical illnesses, treatments, indicators for relapse, and advance statements of preferences for care in the event of future relapse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Admission to hospital, bed days, and use of the Mental Health Act over 15 month follow up. RESULTS: Use of the Mental Health Act was significantly reduced for the intervention group, 13% (10/80) of whom experienced compulsory admission or treatment compared with 27% (21/80) of the control group (risk ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.95, P = 0.028). As a consequence, the mean number of days of detention (days spent as an inpatient while under a section of the Mental Health Act) for the whole intervention group was 14 compared with 31 for the control group (difference 16, 0 to 36, P = 0.04). For those admitted under a section of the Mental Health Act, the number of days of detention was similar in the two groups (means 114 and 117, difference 3, -61 to 67, P = 0.98). The intervention group had fewer admissions (risk ratio 0.69, 0.45 to 1.04, P = 0.07). There was no evidence for differences in bed days (total number of days spent as an inpatient) (means 32 and 36, difference 4, -18 to 26, P = 0.15 for the whole sample; means 107 and 83, difference -24, -72 to 24, P = 0.39 for those admitted). CONCLUSIONS: Use of joint crisis plans reduced compulsory admissions and treatment in patients with severe mental illness. The reduction in overall admission was less. This is the first structured clinical intervention that seems to reduce compulsory admission and treatment in mental health services.