Supporting people in Early Intervention in Psychosis services: the role of primary care.

BACKGROUND: Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services offer treatment to people experiencing a first episode of psychosis. Service users may be referred from primary care and discharged directly back at the end of their time in an EIP service. AIM: To explore the role of primary care in supporting EIP service users (SUs) and to understand how to improve collaboration between primary and specialist care. METHOD: Qualitative study comprising semi-structured interviews with SUs, carers, healthcare professionals (HCPs), managers, and commissioners. Interviews were conducted either online or by telephone. Thematic analysis was carried out using principles of constant comparison. Patient and public involvement were key to all stages, including data analysis. RESULTS: In total, 55 interviews were conducted with SUs (n = 13), carers (n = 10), and GPs, EIP HCPs, managers, and commissioners (n = 33). GPs reported difficulties in referring people into EIP services and little contact with SUs while in EIP services, even about physical health. GPs suggested they were not included in planning discharge from EIP to primary care. SUs and carers reported that transition from EIP can lead to uncertainty, distress, and exacerbation of symptoms. GPs reported only being made aware of patients on or after discharge, with no contact for 3 years. GPs described difficulty managing complex medication regimes, and barriers to re-referral to mental health services. CONCLUSION: GPs have a key role in supporting people within EIP services, specifically monitoring and managing physical health. Inclusion of GPs in planning discharge from EIP services is vital.

Collaboration across the primary and specialist care interface in Early Intervention in Psychosis services: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People with new psychotic symptoms may be managed in an Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) service. They may be discharged back to primary care at the end of their time in an EIP service. AIM: To explore the role of primary care in supporting people with psychosis in an EIP service. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study, within a programme of work to explore the optimum duration of management in an EIP service in England. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with people in EIP services, carers, GPs, and EIP practitioners between September 2022 and September 2023. Data collection continued until information power was achieved. Data were thematically analysed using principles of constant comparison. RESULTS: While most service users and carers described their experiences of EIP services as positive, there are issues around access to and discharge from the services. GPs reported difficulties in referring people into EIP services, having little contact with people who are supported by EIP services, and not being included in planning discharge from EIP services to primary care. Service users and carers described challenges at the point of discharge from EIP services to primary care, associated with feelings of abandonment. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that GPs should have a role in the support of people in EIP services (in particular, monitoring and managing physical health) and their carers. Inclusion of GPs in managing discharge from EIP services is vital. We suggest that a joint consultation with the service user, their carer (if they wish), along with the EIP care coordinator and GP would make this transition smoother.

Cost-effectiveness of therapist-assisted internet-delivered psychological therapies for PTSD differing in trauma focus in England: an economic evaluation based on the STOP-PTSD trial.

BACKGROUND: Although there are effective psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), they remain inaccessible for many people. Digitally enabled therapy is a way to overcome this problem; however, there is little evidence on which forms of these therapies are most cost effective in PTSD. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the STOP-PTSD trial, which evaluated two therapist-assisted, internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapies: cognitive therapy for PTSD (iCT-PTSD) and a programme focusing on stress management (iStress-PTSD). METHODS: In this health economic evaluation, we used data from the STOP-PTSD trial (n=217), a single-blind, randomised controlled trial, to compare iCT-PTSD and iStress-PTSD in terms of resource use and health outcomes. In the trial, participants (aged ≥18 years) who met DSM-5 criteria for PTSD were recruited from primary care therapy services in South East England. The interventions were delivered online with therapist support for the first 12 weeks, and three telephone calls over the next 3 months. Participants completed questionnaires on symptoms, wellbeing, quality of life, and resource use at baseline, 13 weeks, 26 weeks, and 39 weeks after randomisation. We used a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at 39 weeks post-randomisation, from the perspective of the English National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services and on the basis of intention-to-treat for complete cases. Treatment modules and the platform design were developed with extensive input from service users: service users also advised on the trial protocol and methods, including the health economic measures. This is a pre-planned analysis of the STOP-PTSD trial; the trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN16806208). FINDINGS: NHS costs were similar across treatment groups, but clinical outcomes were superior for iCT-PTSD compared with iStress-PTSD. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for NHS costs and personal social services was estimated as £1921 per QALY. iCT-PTSD had an estimated 91·6% chance of being cost effective at the £20 000 per QALY threshold. From the societal perspective, iCT-PTSD was cost saving compared with iStress-PTSD. INTERPRETATION: iCT-PTSD is a cost-effective form of therapist-assisted, internet-delivered psychological therapy relative to iStress-PTSD, and it could be considered for clinical implementation. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust and National Institute of Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Predictors of positive outcomes from 'Early Intervention in Psychosis': protocol for a national retrospective cohort study.

Background: Psychotic disorders are severe and prevalent mental health conditions associated with long-term disability, reduced quality of life, and substantial economic costs. Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services aim to provide timely and comprehensive treatment for psychotic disorders, and EIP service input is associated with improved outcomes. However, there is limited understanding of the specific components of EIP care that contribute to these improvements. There is significant nationwide variability in the commissioning and delivery of EIP, with individuals receiving different packages of components from different services. In this study, we seek to explore associations between EIP components and clinically significant outcomes, in order to understand the mechanisms underlying improved psychosis care. Methods: This national retrospective cohort study will utilize data from the 2019 National Clinical Audit of Psychosis (NCAP), examining the care received by 10,560 individuals treated by EIP services in England. Exposure data from the NCAP, capturing the components of care delivered by EIP services, will be linked with outcome data from routine NHS Digital datasets over a three-year follow-up period. This will be the first study to use this method to examine this population in England. The primary outcomes will be surrogate measures of relapse of psychosis (hospital admission and referral to community-based crisis intervention services). Secondary outcomes include duration of admissions, emergency hospital attendances, episodes of detention under the Mental Health Act, and all-cause mortality. We will use multilevel regression to examine associations between exposures and outcome events. We will handle missing data using appropriate imputation techniques. Discussion: This study aims to provide valuable insights into the long-term effects of variations in EIP service delivery. The study involves a large, diverse cohort including individuals treated by every EIP service in England. While there are limitations inherent in the observational nature of the study, any associations identified will be of great relevance to clinicians, researchers, and policymakers seeking to optimize EIP care. The results will enable more targeted treatment planning, resource allocation, and potential innovations in EIP care, ultimately leading to improved prognoses for people experiencing psychosis.

Predictors of positive patient-reported outcomes from 'Early Intervention in Psychosis': a national cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The components of care delivered by Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services vary, but the impact on patient experience is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between components of care provided by EIP services in England and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: 2374 patients from EIP services in England were surveyed during the National Clinical Audit of Psychosis. Participants were asked about the care they received, and completed the 'Patient Global Impressions' Scale (rating whether their mental health had improved), and 'Friends and Family Test' (rating whether they would recommend their service). Information about service structure was obtained from service providers. We analysed associations between outcomes and components of care using multilevel regression. FINDINGS: The majority of participants were likely to recommend the treatment they had received (89.8%), and felt that their mental health had improved (89.0%). Participants from services where care coordinators had larger case loads were less likely to recommend their care. Participants were more likely to recommend their care if they had been offered cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis, family therapy or targeted interventions for carers. Participants were more likely to report that their mental health had improved if they had been offered cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis or targeted interventions for carers. CONCLUSIONS: Specific components of EIP care were associated with improved patient reported outcomes. Psychosocial interventions and carer support may be particularly important in optimising outcomes for patients. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings emphasise the need for small case load sizes and comprehensive packages of treatment in EIP services.

The early impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with severe mental illness: An interrupted time-series study in South-East England.

BACKGROUND: Deterioration in general population mental health since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic has been reported, but the impact of the pandemic on people with severe mental illness (SMI) has received less attention. AIMS: To understand the impact of the early stages of the pandemic on the patients with SMI, in terms of provision of mental health care and patient outcomes. METHOD: We examined records of 34,446 patients with SMI in Oxford Health Foundation Trust between March 2016 and July 2020. We used interrupted time-series analysis to estimate the immediate and subsequent changes in weekly rates of the use of community mental health services, hospitalization, and patient outcomes (as measured by Health of the Nation Outcome Scales, or HoNOS, scores) during the weeks of lockdown between March 23, 2020 and July 3, 2020. RESULTS: Mean total HoNOS scores for all patients deteriorated in the weeks subsequent to lockdown (0.060 per week; 95%CI: 0.033, 0.087). Scores for patients with a history of psychosis deteriorated immediately (0.63; 95% CI: 0.26, 1.0). There was an immediate decrease in weekly referrals to community and outpatient services (-196; 95%CI: -300, -91) and no immediate change in weekly inpatient admissions (-4.2; 95%CI: -9.9, 1.5) or weekly total contacts (-26; 95%CI: -475, 423). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SMI were negatively impacted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with a history of psychosis experienced distinct and immediate impacts. During the same period, referrals to community and outpatient services fell with no consequent impact on inpatient admissions.