Does colocated care improve access to cardiometabolic screening for patients with serious mental illness?

Objective

Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI; e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) experience disparities in mortality relative to the general population, mainly because of medical conditions (i.e., cardiometabolic disease).We assessed whether VA patients with SMI and receiving care from VA mental health facilities with colocated medical care were more likely to receive cardiometabolic risk assessments in accordance with clinical practice guidelines than patients from noncolocated facilities.

Methods

Patients with SMI identified prescribed second-generation antipsychotic medications in fiscal year (FY) 2007 receiving care from VA mental health facilities completing the VA Mental Health Program Survey were included. VA administrative data were ascertained to assess receipt of the following tests every 6 months in FY 2007: body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, lipid profile and fasting glucose.

Results

Out of 40,600 patients with SMI prescribed second-generation antipsychotics, 29% received all cardiometabolic tests (lipid, glucose, BMI and blood pressure). While 79% and 76% received blood pressure and BMI assessments, respectively, only 37% received a lipid test. Patients from colocated sites were more likely to receive all cardiometabolic tests (odds ratio=1.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.18–1.35, P<.001).

Conclusions

Colocated general medical providers in mental health clinics are more likely to provide cardiometabolic assessments for patients with SMI prescribed second-generation antipsychotics.     

Do community treatment orders for mental illness reduce readmission to hospital?

Background It has been suggested that community treatment orders (CTOs) will prevent readmission to hospital, but controlled studies have been inconclusive. We aimed to test the hypothesis that hospital discharges made subject to CTOs are associated with a reduced risk of readmission. The use of such a measure is likely to change after its introduction as clinicians acquire familiarity with it, and we also tested the hypothesis that the characteristics of patients subject to CTOs changed over time in the first decade of their use in Victoria, Australia. Method A database from Victoria, Australia (total population 4.8 million) was used. Cox proportional hazard models compared the hazard ratios of readmission to hospital before the end of the study period (1992–2000) for 16,216 discharges subject to a CTO and 112,211 not subject to a CTO. Results Community treatment orders used on discharge from a first admission to hospital were associated with a higher risk of readmission, but CTOs following subsequent admissions were associated with lower readmission risk. The risk also declined over the study period. Conclusions The effect of using a CTO depends on the patient’s history. At a population level their introduction may not reduce readmission to hospital. Their impact may change over time. Declaration of interest None.     

Daily living: Does this matter for people with mental illness?

Structuring their daily life is an important problem for many individuals with chronic mental disorder. Therefore day structuring services are considered as constituent parts of modern mental healthcare systems. In this paper the theoretical and empirical basis for the implementation and evaluation of day structuring services will be discussed from a social science perspective. Recent work in the field of cultural sociology shows that the social framework of everyday behaviour in modern societies provides a great variety of opportunities to create and practice individual lifestyles. The potential to take advantage of these opportunities is related to individual competencies and resources. The few existing qualitative studies on the everyday behaviour of individuals with chronic mental disorders in the community reveal that increased freedom of choice is often combined with an objective or subjective lack of resources and competencies to make use of this variety of opportunities. Therefore, beyond providing a structure for daily life, day structuring services should help empower individuals with chronic mental disorder to make their choices among behavioural alternatives bearing in mind both illness-related limitations and their strengths and resources.     

De-constructing home-based care for mental illness: can one identify the effective ingredients?

OBJECTIVE: Home-based care for severe mental illness has been the focus of intense research over the last 30 years and has produced mixed results. Replications of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) in Europe have consistently failed to find these differences and various explanations have been advanced for this. METHOD: Studies were compared in context of health care, and then identifying and rating the components of the differing teams rather than simply their designation. Cluster analysis was used for the identification of common service characteristics and regression analysis to test for correlation with reduction in hospitalization. RESULTS: The nature of the control service may significantly explain the international variation in results. Six regularly occurring features of experimental services were identified from the examination of the components - smaller case loads, regularly visiting at home, a high percentage of contacts at home, responsibility for health and social care, multidisciplinary teams and a psychiatrist integrated in the team. Two of these, regularly visiting at home and responsibility for health and social care, are significantly associated with a reduction in hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: It is premature to define an optimal configuration for home based care services. The need for introducing differing components of such care will depend on what is currently available locally. Where regular home visiting to psychotic patients plus a broad service model incorporating health and social care objectives are provided, major reductions in in-patient care are not currently to be anticipated by service re-configurations.     

Is there a duty for private employers to provide emergency mental health care services?

This article presents a discussion of whether employers in private companies have a duty to provide an emergency action plan with a mental health component for its employees. It discusses basic negligence concepts and focuses mainly on the "duty of care" component of negligence. It then applies the negligence concepts to private employers and discusses how private companies arguably might have a duty under the laws of negligence to provide employees with an emergency action plan, specifically a plan including mental health provisions.     

Is antipsychotic medication stigmatizing for people with mental illness?

Antipsychotic medications are clearly identified as important in the treatment of individuals with schizophrenia and with bipolar disorder. However, negative societal reaction related to having a serious mental illness and the socially undesirable side effects associated with antipsychotic medication treatment may combine to worsen stigma associated with treatment for mental illness. Specific stigmatizing effects of antipsychotic therapy may be difficult to evaluate independently from factors such as symptoms, insight into illness and side effects. Attitudes towards antipsychotic medication may be positive in individuals who recognize therapeutic drug effects, however other individuals may view medications negatively due to a sense of stigma. Stigma among individuals with bipolar disorder in relation to treatment with antipsychotic medication has not been well addressed in the literature. An additional concern among individuals with bipolar disorder who receive antipsychotic medications may be the notion that antipsychotics are 'schizophrenia drugs', and thus an inappropriate treatment for their condition. Antipsychotic medications can be stigmatizing for patients with serious mental illness, however the roots of stigma are extensive, and efforts to minimize stigma can only be successful when addressed by the individual with illness, their families and loved ones, treatment providers and society at large.     

Is dementia a mental illness?

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether dementia is a mental illness. METHOD: An analysis of decisions in the Supreme Court of New South Wales that dementia per se was not a mental illness in terms of the 1958 Mental Health Act. A brief review of the extrusion of other diseases from psychiatry. RESULTS: Concepts in legislation are based on a dichotomy between mental infirmity and mental illness that has changed over time. This change is the result of shifting perceptions about the basis of illness and disease and the causation of mental symptoms. Mental health legislation is aimed as much at social control of feared behaviour as protecting the ill/incompetent. Guardianship legislation offers a more holistic response that better meets the patient's needs and could be extended to supplant mental health legislation. CONCLUSIONS: Dementia's departure from mental illness reflects psychiatry's continuing marginalization within medicine on an outdated mind/body or illness/disease split. This underlines one of the psychiatrist's roles as the vehicle to 'medically' explain abnormal behaviour. This model means that behaviour, once explained in terms of disease as opposed to illness, can be moved from the direct responsibility of psychiatry into other areas of medicine. Paradoxically, this suggests that the future of psychiatry will be in a completely different direction from its current biological focus.     

Do people recognise mental illness?

BACKGROUND: Mental health literacy has been defined as the public's knowledge and the beliefs about mental disorders enhancing the ability to recognise specific disorders. AIMS: Firstly, to determine whether the public recognises a person depicted in a vignette as mentally ill or as experiencing a crisis. Secondly, to reveal the factors influencing the correct recognition. METHODS: Multiple logistic regression analysis of an opinion survey conducted in a representative population sample in Switzerland (n=844). RESULTS: The depression vignette was correctly recognised by 39.8% whereas 60.2% of the respondents considered the person depicted as having a 'crisis.' The schizophrenia vignette was correctly identified by 73.6% of the interviewees. A positive attitude to psychopharmacology positively influenced the recognition of the two vignettes whereas a positive attitude to community psychiatry had the inverse effect. Moreover, for the depression vignette previous contact to mentally ill people had a positive influence on the recognition. For the schizophrenia vignette instead, rigidity and interest in mass media had a negative influence, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The low knowledge about mental disorders, particularly depression, confirms the importance and the need to increase mental health literacy. Furthermore, professionals must openly discuss illness models with their patients, especially emphasising the differences between illness and crisis.     

Genetic bases of mental illness -- a cure for stigma?

An increased emphasis on biological causes of mental illness has been viewed as having the potential to significantly reduce stigma. From this perspective, the current genetics revolution can be seen as a source of hope. However, some have argued that biological attributions could increase stigma, for example by making the ill person seem 'defective' or 'physically distinct' -- 'almost a different species'. In this paper, I use a multicomponent conceptualization of stigma as a guide in forming hypotheses about the likely impact of genetic attributions on the stigma of mental illness.     

From whence comes mental illness stigma?

BACKGROUND: This paper seeks to answer two fundamental questions: What is the basis of the current form of mental illness stigma? and Why do western cultures stereotype people with mental illness as dangerous, incompetent and blameful, rather than something else? MATERIAL AND DISCUSSION: We argue that a motivational model called system-justification offers several benefits for answering these questions. System-justification portrays stigma as a way of making sense of economic and political differences between the majority and stigmatized subgroups. We contrast system-justification with two cognitive models of stigma that seem to have strong support from naive psychology: mental illness stigma results as the normal perception of a group of people who are dangerous and/or blameworthy and there is a kernel of truth to the stigmatizing attitudes about people with mental illness. Although research supporting the latter two models is mixed, there are significant limitations to the models, as well as concerns that normal perception and kernel of truth might actually promote stigma. CONCLUSIONS: As an alternative, system-justification combines three paradigms that suggest its worthiness for future research: 1) a review of historical and economic forces that influence social phenomena; 2) the need of humankind to understand these forces and organize them into a unitary framework; and 3) the cognitive mechanisms that are essential for this comprehension. Implications of this model for stigma change are discussed.     

Should denialism of mental illness and its treatment be included among conspiracy theories?

European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience -     

Psychiatric services for people with severe mental illness across western Europe: what can be generalized from current knowledge about differences in provision, costs and outcomes of mental health care?

OBJECTIVE: To report recent findings regarding differences in the provision, cost and outcomes of mental health care in Europe, and to examine to what extent these studies can provide a basis for improvement of mental health services and use of findings across countries. METHOD: Findings from a number of studies describing mental health care in different European countries and comparing provision of care across countries are reported. RESULTS: The development of systems of mental health care in western Europe is characterized by a common trend towards deinstitutionalization, less in-patient treatment and improvement of community services. Variability between national mental healthcare systems is still substantial. At the individual patient level the variability of psychiatric service systems results in different patterns of service use and service costs. However, these differences are not reflected in outcome differences in a coherent way. CONCLUSION: It is conceivable that the principal targets of mental healthcare reform can be achieved along several pathways taking into account economic, political and sociocultural variation between countries. Differences between mental healthcare systems appear to affect service provision and costs. However, the impact of such differences on patient outcomes may be less marked. The empirical evidence is limited and further studies are required.