The What and the How: A pilot study of feedback from service providers and consumers about service development in new urban mental health hub.

OBJECTIVE: An inner-city hospital purchased a local hotel to provide support, digital engagement, skill development groups and referrals to partner agencies. Being aware of the hotel's importance to the local community, we sought feedback on a model of care relevant to perceived gaps and needs in support for mental health. METHODS: Four online focus groups included healthcare professionals, nominated opinion leaders from local Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), consumers and carers to reflect a range of views. Focus group data were qualitatively analysed. RESULTS: Participants made useful suggestions about WHAT educational, preventative and therapeutic services were needed. They emphasised the importance of HOW people engage with the service, the balance between accessibility and security. Other themes included targeting people with limited health literacy, integration with existing services, building on site heritage and ongoing evaluation of objectives and needs. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated clear support for providing safe and welcoming access to services, with resources and access to services to improve their health and wellbeing built on principles of social justice and inclusion. Participants had constructive ideas of what was needed, and ongoing patient and public research is anticipated.

The Quality of Internet Websites for People Experiencing Psychosis: Pilot Expert Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians need to be able to assess the quality of the available information to aid clinical decision-making. The internet has become an important source of health information for consumers and their families. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to rate the quality of websites with psychosis-related information (to provide clinicians with a basis for recommending material to guide clinical decision-making with consumers and their families), using a validated instrument as well as a purpose-developed checklist, and consider improvement in quality over a 4-year period. METHODS: Two measures of website quality were used: the DISCERN scale and the Psychosis Website Quality Checklist (PWQC). Terms related to psychosis, including "psychotic," "psychosis," "schizophrenia," "delusion," and "hallucination," were entered into Google, and the first 25 results were analyzed. In total, 6 raters with varying health professional backgrounds were used to evaluate the websites across two time points: January-March 2014 and January-March 2018. RESULTS: Of the 25 websites rated, only the 6 highest ranked websites achieved a DISCERN score, indicating that they were of "good" quality (51-62 out of a possible 75), while the mean score of the websites (mean 43.96, SD 12.08) indicated an overall "fair" quality. The PWQC revealed that websites scored highly on "availability and usability" (mean 16.82, SD 3.96) but poorly on "credibility" (mean 20.99, SD 6.68), "currency" (mean 5.16, SD 2.62), and "breadth and accuracy" (mean 77.87, SD 23.20). Most sites lacked information about early intervention, recreational drug use and suicide risk, with little change in content over time. Stating an editorial or review process on the website (found in 56% of websites) was significantly associated with a higher quality score on both scales (the DISCERN scale, P=.002; the PWQC, P=.006). CONCLUSIONS: The information on the internet available for clinicians to recommend to people affected by psychosis tended to be of "fair" quality. While higher-quality websites exist, it is generally not easy way to assess this on face value. Evidence of an editorial or review process was one indicator of website quality. While sites generally provided basic clinical information, most lacked material addressing weighing up risks and benefits of medication and alternatives, the role of coercive treatment and other more contentious issues. Insufficient emphasis is placed on detailed information on early intervention and importance of lifestyle modifications or how families and friends can contribute. These are likely to be the very answers that consumers and carers are seeking and this gap contributes to unmet needs among this group. We suggest that clinicians should be aware of what is available and where there are gaps.

Sertraline hydrochloride for reducing impulsive behaviour in male, repeat-violent offenders (ReINVEST): protocol for a phase IV, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Considerable evidence supports an association between poor impulse control (impulsivity) and violent crime. Furthermore, impulsivity and aggression has been associated with reduced levels of serotonergic activity in the brain. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are a class of anti-depressants that aim to regulate brain serotonin concentrations. Several small studies in psychiatric populations have administered SSRIs to impulsive--aggressive individuals, resulting in reduced impulsivity, anger, aggression and depression. However, no clinical trial has been undertaken in a criminal justice population. This protocol describes the design and implementation of the first systematic study of the potential benefits of SSRIs in impulsive---violent offenders who are at high risk of reoffending. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised, double-blinded, multicentre trial to test the clinical efficacy of an SSRI, sertraline hydrochloride, compared with placebo on recidivism and behavioural measures (including impulsivity, anger, aggression, depression and self-reported offending) over 12 months. 460 participants with histories of violence and screening positive for impulsivity are recruited at several local courts and correctional service offices in New South Wales, Australia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Possible implications of the effectiveness of this pharmacological intervention include economic benefits of reducing prison costs and societal benefits of improving safety. This study has received ethical approval from the University of New South Wales, Aboriginal Health & Medical Research Council, Corrective Services NSW and the NSW Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613000442707.

What's in a name? Brand name confusion and generic medicines.

We need an urgent review of medicines labelling in Australia and New Zealand.

Cardiovascular risk among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal smoking male prisoners: inequalities compared to the wider community.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) were collected as part of a randomised controlled trial of a multi-component intervention to reduce smoking among male prisoners. Cross-sectional baseline data on CVRF were compared among smoking male prisoners and males of similar age in the general population. METHODS: 425 smoking prisoners were recruited (n = 407 in New South Wales; 18 in Queensland), including 15% of Aboriginal descent (mean age 33 years; median sentence length 3.6 years). We measured CVRF such as smoking, physical activity, blood pressure, risky alcohol use, symptoms of depression, and low socioeconomic status. RESULTS: We found that 39% of prisoners had 3+ CVRF, compared to 10% in a general community sample of most disadvantaged men of a similar age. Significantly more Aboriginal prisoners had 3+ CVRF than non-Aboriginal prisoners (55% vs 36%, p < 0.01) and were twice as likely to have 4+ CVRF (27% vs 12%). In addition to all prisoners in this study being a current smoker (with 70% smoking 20+ cigarettes per day), the prevalence of other CVRF was very high: insufficient physical activity (23%); hypertension (4%), risky drinking (52%), symptoms of depression (14%) and low socioeconomic status (SES) (44%). Aboriginal prisoners had higher levels of risky alcohol use, symptoms of depression, and were more likely to be of low SES. CONCLUSION: Prisoners are at high risk for developing cardiovascular disease compared to even the most disadvantaged in their community and should be the focus of specific public health interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN#12606000229572.

Critical decision points in the management of impaired doctors: the New South Wales Medical Board program.

The New South Wales Medical Board has developed the Impaired Registrants Program to deal with impaired registrants (doctors and medical students) in a constructive and non-disciplinary manner; the program is now well established. The Program enables the Board to protect the public, while maintaining doctors in practice whenever possible. Disorders that commonly lead to referral of impaired doctors include alcohol and drug misuse, major depression, bipolar disorder, cognitive impairment and, less commonly, psychotic and personality disorders and anorexia nervosa. Pathways in the program are individualised according to the impact of the specific disorder, the registrant's career stage, stage of involvement in the program, insight and motivation. Critical points in the program include entry, easing of conditions, breach of conditions, return to work after suspension, and exit from the program. Decision-making at these points takes into account the nature of the impairment, compliance, professional and personal support available and the registrant's insight and motivation.

Valid assessment of the clinical features of depression by relatives appears to slip under the RADAR.

OBJECTIVE: We report on the development of an observational measure designed for completion by relatives, the Recent Appearance of Depression Assessed by Relatives (RADAR), and consider its validity. METHOD: One hundred and one patients with a current major depressive episode had a relative or close friend complete the RADAR, while psychiatrists and research assistants collected extensive data. RESULTS: Correlated against both patient self-report and psychiatrist-rated depression severity measures, RADAR scores evidenced poor validity overall. Recent Appearance of Depression Assessed by Relatives scores also failed to differentiate depressive subtypes, in that scores for patients with melancholic depression were not significantly higher than for those with non-melancholic depression. CONCLUSIONS: Results are consistent with previous findings of poor agreement between clinicians and corroborative witnesses in assessing clinical depressive features, and argue against reliance on corroborative witness reports.