Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro. MAIN RESULTS: Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Longitudinal realist evaluation of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team (D-PACT) intervention: protocol.

BACKGROUND: Different dementia support roles exist but evidence is lacking on which aspects are best, for whom, and in what circumstances, and on their associated costs and benefits. Phase 1 of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team programme (D-PACT) developed a post-diagnostic primary care-based intervention for people with dementia and their carers and assessed the feasibility of a trial. AIM: Phase 2 of the programme aims to 1) refine the programme theory on how, when, and for whom the intervention works; and 2) evaluate its value and impact. DESIGN & SETTING: A realist longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation will be conducted in urban, rural, and coastal areas across South West and North West England where low-income or ethnic minority populations (for example, South Asian) are represented. Design was informed by patient, public, and professional stakeholder input and phase 1 findings. METHOD: High-volume qualitative and quantitative data will be collected longitudinally from people with dementia, carers, and practitioners. Analyses will comprise the following: 1) realist longitudinal case studies; 2) conversation analysis of recorded interactions; 3) statistical analyses of outcome and experience questionnaires; 4a) health economic analysis examining costs of delivery; and 4b) realist economic analysis of high-cost events and 'near misses'. All findings will be synthesised using a joint display table, evidence appraisal tool, triangulation, and stakeholder co-analysis. CONCLUSION: The realist evaluation will describe how, why, and for whom the intervention does or does not lead to change over time. It will also demonstrate how a non-randomised design can be more appropriate for complex interventions with similar questions or populations.

The effectiveness of a primary care-based collaborative care model to improve quality of life in people with severe mental illness: PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. AIMS: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. METHOD: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

Evaluation of a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS2) for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other psychoses: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Current NHS policy encourages an integrated approach to provision of mental and physical care for individuals with long term mental health problems. The 'PARTNERS2' complex intervention is designed to support individuals with psychosis in a primary care setting. AIM: The trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PARTNERS2 intervention. DESIGN & SETTING: This is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial comparing collaborative care (PARTNERS2) with usual care, with an internal pilot to assess feasibility. The setting will be primary care within four trial recruitment areas: Birmingham & Solihull, Cornwall, Plymouth, and Somerset. GP practices are randomised 1:1 to either (a) the PARTNERS2 intervention plus modified standard care ('intervention'); or (b) standard care only ('control'). METHOD: PARTNERS2 is a flexible, general practice-based, person-centred, coaching-based intervention aimed at addressing mental health, physical health, and social care needs. Two hundred eligible individuals from 39 GP practices are taking part. They were recruited through identification from secondary and primary care databases. The primary hypothesis is quality of life (QOL). Secondary outcomes include: mental wellbeing, time use, recovery, and process of physical care. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery, test hypothesised mechanisms of action, and look for unintended consequences. An economic evaluation will estimate its cost-effectiveness. Intervention delivery and follow-up have been modified during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The overarching aim is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the model for adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other types of psychoses.

Clinical decision support improves quality of telephone triage documentation--an analysis of triage documentation before and after computerized clinical decision support.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) has been shown to be effective in improving medical safety and quality but there is little information on how telephone triage benefits from CDS. The aim of our study was to compare triage documentation quality associated with the use of a clinical decision support tool, ExpertRN©. METHODS: We examined 50 triage documents before and after a CDS tool was used in nursing triage. To control for the effects of CDS training we had an additional control group of triage documents created by nurses who were trained in the CDS tool, but who did not use it in selected notes. The CDS intervention cohort of triage notes was compared to both the pre-CDS notes and the CDS trained (but not using CDS) cohort. Cohorts were compared using the documentation standards of the American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing (AAACN). We also compared triage note content (documentation of associated positive and negative features relating to the symptoms, self-care instructions, and warning signs to watch for), and documentation defects pertinent to triage safety. RESULTS: Three of five AAACN documentation standards were significantly improved with CDS. There was a mean of 36.7 symptom features documented in triage notes for the CDS group but only 10.7 symptom features in the pre-CDS cohort (p < 0.0001) and 10.2 for the cohort that was CDS-trained but not using CDS (p < 0.0001). The difference between the mean of 10.2 symptom features documented in the pre-CDS and the mean of 10.7 symptom features documented in the CDS-trained but not using was not statistically significant (p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: CDS significantly improves triage note documentation quality. CDS-aided triage notes had significantly more information about symptoms, warning signs and self-care. The changes in triage documentation appeared to be the result of the CDS alone and not due to any CDS training that came with the CDS intervention. Although this study shows that CDS can improve documentation, further study is needed to determine if it results in improved care.

Language, mental state vocabulary, and false belief understanding in children with cochlear implants.

PURPOSE: This study examined false belief understanding and its predictors in school-age children who are deaf with cochlear implants and who use spoken language. METHOD: False belief understanding was measured through an explanation-of-action task in 30 children between the ages of 3 and 12 years who used cochlear implants. Children told a wordless story from which expressive syntax and vocabulary scores were obtained. Scores on the false belief explanation task were then correlated with a variety of language and vocabulary variables, and regression analyses were completed to ascertain significant predictors of theory of mind (ToM) performance. RESULTS: Children's false belief explanation of anomalous action was best predicted by age; general language ability; and spontaneous use of mental state vocabulary, specifically, cognitive vocabulary. Even the youngest children demonstrated awareness of others' mental states and made reference to them in explaining mistaken actions, supporting the assertion by M. Marschark, V. Green, G. Hindmarsh, and S. Walker (2000) that children who are deaf are not lacking a ToM. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Results of this study suggest that ToM maturation in deaf children might be facilitated by developing general spoken language skills as well as understanding and using cognitive and emotional language. These findings might also extend to children with normal hearing who are also at risk for ToM deficits (e.g., children on the autistic spectrum and children with pragmatic language delays).