Dataset Information

Compulsory community treatment to reduce readmission to hospital and increase engagement with community care in people with mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Compulsory community treatment (CCT) aims to reduce hospital readmissions among people with mental illness. However, research examining the usefulness of CCT is inconclusive. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of CCT in reducing readmission and length of stay in hospital and increasing community service use and treatment adherence.

Methods

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched three databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Embase) for quantitative studies on CCT published in English between Jan 1, 1806, and Jan 4, 2018. We included both randomised and non-randomised designs that compared CCT with no CCT, and pre-post designs that compared patients before and after CCT. Studies were eligible if they had been peer-reviewed, if 50% or more of patients had severe mental illness, and if CCT was the intervention. Trials in which CCT was used in response to a criminal offence were excluded. We extracted data on study characteristics and length of follow-up, patient-level data on diagnosis, age, sex, race, and admission history, and outcomes of interest (readmission to hospital, inpatient bed-days, community service use, and treatment adherence) for meta-analysis, for which we extracted summary estimates. We used a random-effects model to compare disparate outcome measures and convert effect size statistics into standardised mean differences. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018086232.

Findings

Of 1931 studies identified, 41 (2%) met inclusion criteria and had sufficient data for analysis. Before and after CCT comparisons showed significant large effects on readmission to hospital (standardised mean difference 0·80, 95% CI 0·53-1·08; I²=94·74), use of community services (0·83, 0·46-1·21; I²=87·26), and treatment adherence (2·12, 1·69-2·55; I²=0), and a medium effect on inpatient bed-days (0·66, 0·46-0·85; I²=94·12). Contemporaneous controlled comparison studies (randomised and non-randomised) showed no significant effect on readmission, inpatient bed-days, or treatment adherence, but a moderate effect on use of community services (0·38, 0·19-0·58; I²=96·92). A high degree of variability in study quality was found, with observational study ratings ranging from three to nine. Bias most frequently centred on poor comparability between CCT and control participants.

Interpretation

We found no consistent evidence that CCT reduces readmission or length of inpatient stay, although it might have some benefit in enforcing use of outpatient treatment or increasing service provision, or both. Future research should focus on why some people do not engage with treatment offered and on enhancing quality of the community care available. Shortcomings of this study include high levels of variability between studies and variation in study quality.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Barnett P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6251967 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo explain why clinical trials of intensive case management for people with severe mental illness show such inconsistent effects on the use of hospital care.DesignSystematic review with meta-regression techniques applied to data from randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesCochrane central register of controlled trials, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and PsychINFO databases from inception to January 2007. Additional anonymised data on patients were obtained for multicentre trials.Review methodsIncluded trials examined intensive case management compared with standard care or low intensity case management for people with severe mental illness living in the community. We used a fidelity scale to rate adherence to the model of assertive community treatment. Multicentre trials were disaggregated into individual centres with fidelity data specific for each centre. A multivariate meta-regression used mean days per month in hospital as the dependent variable.ResultsWe identified 1335 abstracts with a total of 5961 participants. Of these, 49 were eligible and 29 provided appropriate data. Trials with high hospital use at baseline (before the trial) or in the control group were more likely to find that intensive case management reduced the use of hospital care (coefficient -0.23, 95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.09, for hospital use at baseline; -0.44, -0.57 to -0.31, for hospital use in control groups). Case management teams organised according to the model of assertive community treatment were more likely to reduce the use of hospital care (coefficient -0.31, -0.59 to -0.03), but this finding was less robust in sensitivity analyses and was not found for staffing levels recommended for assertive community treatment.ConclusionsIntensive case management works best when participants tend to use a lot of hospital care and less well when they do not. When hospital use is high, intensive case management can reduce it, but it is less successful when hospital use is already low. The benefits of intensive case management might be marginal in settings that have already achieved low rates of bed use, and team organisation is more important than the details of staffing. It might not be necessary to apply the full model of assertive community treatment to achieve reductions in inpatient care.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with serious mental illness (i.e., SMI; bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia) are at increased risk of readmission, yet little is known about the extent to which readmission rates among these patients vary across hospitals. The purpose of this study was to examine the variation across hospitals in readmissions for patients with SMI and differences in the characteristics of hospitals with the highest and lowest adjusted readmission rates.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of pooled inpatient claims from 2013-2016. Mixed logit models with hospital random effects were used to estimate the hospital-level variance. The sample included patients with SMI from a 5% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries.ResultsWe identified 2066 hospitals with at least 30 index admissions for Medicare beneficiaries with SMI. In multivariate analyses, factors most strongly associated with increased risk of readmission included substance use disorder (OR 2.311; p < 0.001) and end stage renal disease (OR 2.024; p < 0.001). Unadjusted readmission for hospitals at the 5th and 95th percentiles of performance were 7.05% and 15.24%, respectively, constituting an 8.2% difference. Adjusting for patient and community characteristics reduced the spread in readmission rates between the 5th and 95th percentiles of hospitals by 1.0% (i.e. to 7.2%). Hospitals in the lowest vs. highest quintiles of adjusted readmission rates were more likely to be teaching hospitals (11.1% vs. 16.7%; p < 0.05) and located in the South (37.7% vs. 40.4%) or Midwest (19.8% vs. 30.0%; p < 0.001 for region differences).ConclusionsThere is substantial hospital-level variation in readmission rates among patients with serious mental illness, even after adjusting for patient and community characteristics. This has implications for policy guiding investment in hospital-based services and community resources, to improve transitions of care for patients with SMI.

Project description:BACKGROUND:An advance directive is a document specifying a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make such decisions in the future. They have been used in end-of-life settings to direct care but should be well suited to the mental health setting. OBJECTIVES:To examine the effects of advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2008), BIOSIS (1985 to February 2008), CINAHL (1982 to February 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), PsycINFO (1872 to February 2008), as well as SCISEARCH and Google - Internet search engine (February 2008). We inspected relevant references and contacted first authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adults with severe mental illness, comparing any form of advance directive with standard care for health service and clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence interval again using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS:We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare is experimenting with numerous concurrent reforms aimed at improving quality and value for hospitals. It is unclear if these myriad reforms are mutually reinforcing or in conflict with each other.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether hospital participation in voluntary value-based reforms was associated with greater improvement under Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP).Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective, longitudinal study using publicly available national data from Hospital Compare on hospital readmissions for 2837 hospitals from 2008 to 2015. We assessed hospital participation in 3 voluntary value-based reforms: Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Records; the Bundled Payment for Care Initiative episode-based payment program (BPCI); and Medicare's Pioneer and Shared Savings accountable care organization (ACO) programs. We used an interrupted time series design to test whether hospitals' time-varying participation in these value-based reforms was associated with greater improvement in Medicare's HRRP.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day risk standardized readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, and pneumonia.ResultsAmong the 2837 hospitals in this study, participation in value-based reforms varied considerably over the study period. In 2010, no hospitals were participating in the meaningful use, ACO, or BPCI programs. By 2015, only 56 hospitals were not participating in at least 1 of these programs. Among hospitals that did not participate in any voluntary reforms, the association between the HRRP and 30-day readmission was -0.76 percentage points for AMI (95% CI, -0.93 to -0.60), -1.30 percentage points for heart failure (95% CI, -1.47 to -1.13), and -0.82 percentage points for pneumonia (95% CI, -0.97 to -0.67). Participation in the meaningful use program alone was associated with an additional change in 30-day readmissions of -0.78 percentage points for AMI (95% CI, -0.89 to -0.67), -0.97 percentage points for heart failure (95% CI, -1.08 to -0.86), and -0.56 percentage points for pneumonia (95% CI, -0.65 to -0.47). Participation in ACO programs alone was associated with an additional change in 30-day readmissions of -0.94 percentage points for AMI (95% CI, -1.29 to -0.59), -0.83 percentage points for heart failure (95% CI, -1.26 to -0.41), and -0.59 percentage points for pneumonia (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.18). Participation in multiple reforms led to greater improvement: participation in all 3 programs was associated with an additional change in 30-day readmissions of -1.27 percentage points for AMI (95% CI, -1.58 to -0.97), -1.64 percentage points for heart failure (95% CI, -2.02 to -1.26), and -1.05 percentage points for pneumonia (95% CI, -1.32 to -0.78).Conclusions and relevanceHospital participation in voluntary value-based reforms was associated with greater reductions in readmissions. Our findings lend support for Medicare's multipronged strategy to improve hospital quality and value.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with serious mental illness die about 20 years earlier than the general population from preventable diseases. Shared-care arrangements between general practitioners and mental health services can improve consumers' access to preventive care, but implementing shared care is challenging. This scoping review sought to describe current evidence on the barriers and facilitators to the participation and engagement of primary care (specifically general practitioners) in shared-care arrangements with community mental health services for preventive health care of this population.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, APA PsychINFO and EBM Reviews from 2010 to 2022. Data was extracted against a Microsoft Excel template developed for the review. Data was synthesised through tabulation and narrative methods.ResultsWe identified 295 records. After eligibility screening and full-text review, seven studies were included. Facilitators of engagement included a good fit with organisation and practice and opportunities to increase collaboration, specific roles to promote communication and coordination and help patients to navigate appointments, multidisciplinary teams and teamwork, and access to shared medical/health records. Barriers included a lack of willingness and motivation on the part of providers and low levels of confidence with tasks, lack of physical structures to produce capacity, poor alignment of funding/incentives, inability to share patient information and challenges engaging people with severe mental illness in the service and with their care.ConclusionOur results were consistent with other research on shared care and suggests that the broader literature is likely to be applicable to the context of general practitioner/mental health services shared care. Specific challenges relating to this cohort present difficulties for recruitment and retention in shared care programs. Sharing "goals and knowledge, mutual respect" and engaging in "frequent, timely, accurate, problem-solving communication", supported by structures such as shared information systems are likely to engage primary care in shared care arrangements more than the traditional focus on incentives, education, and guidelines.