A delphi approach to characterising "relapse" as used in UK clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: 'Relapse' is a common outcome indicator in intervention studies in schizophrenia. In community studies it is frequently equated with hospitalisation and in psychopharmacological studies with predetermined symptom scores. Its clinical meaning, however, remains undefined. METHOD: Consensus on the defining features of 'relapse' in schizophrenia used by academic and clinical schizophrenia experts in the UK, was investigated using a four stage Delphi process. A two panel, four stage, Delphi based methodology was used to investigate the implicit meanings of 'relapse' in clinical practice. A multidisciplinary panel of twelve members each listed anonymously ten indicators of relapse. A second panel, of ten experienced psychiatrists, rated the 188 submitted indicators from essential-unimportant (1-5). This panel completed a one day workshop during the remaining Delphi rounds ending with a structured discussion of the results. RESULTS: Very strong consensus was achieved on the relative importance of potential relapse indicators. There was complete agreement about some aspects of a definition of relapse (such as recurrence of positive symptoms) and a number of the complex issues underlying the concept were clearly articulated. CONCLUSIONS: This four stage Delphi process achieved consensus on core features of relapse. The elucidation of the "softer" features at the threshold between normal fluctuations in functioning and the start of relapse require continuing investigations

Non-clinical and extra-legal influences on decisions about compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital

Background: On the eve of reform of the 1983 Mental Health Act (MHA), little is known about how decisions to admit people under its powers are made. Aims: To describe non-clinical and extra-legal influences on professionals’ decisions about compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital. Method: Participant-observation of MHA assessments, including informal and depth interviews with the practitioners involved, and follow-up interviews with the people who had been assessed. Results: A candidate patient’s chance of being sectioned is likely to increase when there are no realistic alternatives to in-patient care. This typically occurs when staff have insufficient time to set such alternatives in place and are unsupported by other professionals in doing this. Outcomes may also be affected by local operational norms and the level of professional accountability for specific MHA decisions. Conclusion: Non-clinical and extra-legal factors explain some of the geographical variation in MHA admission rates. If compulsion is to be used only in the ‘last resort’, administrators and policy makers should look beyond legislative change to matters of resource allocation and service organisation