First Steps & Beyond: Incorporating Shared Decision Making (SDM) in Massachusetts Mental Health Services (Report & Recommendations from the 2009 Summit) [English and Spanish versions]

A Spanish translation of this publication is available to download under Additional Files below. Shared Decision Making (SDM) is the process in which provider and consumers participate in all phases of the decision making process and together negotiate a treatment to implement. This report summarizes the report and recommendations from the 2009 SDM Summit. Originally published as: Research You Can Use, Issue 1, 2011

MISSION Diversion & Recovery for Traumatized Veterans (MISSION DIRECT VET): Early Planning and Development

MISSION DIRECT VET is a SAMHSA- funded, court based diversion program targeting veterans in Massachusetts with trauma-related mental health and substance use problems. MISSION-DIRECT VET seeks to: Reduce criminal justice involvement Treat mental health, substance abuse and other trauma related symptoms Use a systematic wrap-around model Provide care coordination, peer support and trauma informed service

First Steps and Beyond: Incorporating Shared Decision Making in Massachusetts Mental Health Services

Report and recommendations from a policy summit held on June 25, 2009, by Consumer Quality Initiatives (CQI) and the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health (DMH) in Waltham, Massachusetts entitled: “Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Services: First Steps towards a Statewide Approach.

End-of-life care and mental illness: a model for community psychiatry and beyond

End-of-life care is often influenced by the stereotyping of patients by age, diagnosis, or cultural identity. Two common stereotypes arise from the presumed incompetence of many patients to contribute to end-of-life decisions, and the fear that the discussions themselves will be de-stabilizing. We present a model for end-of-life discussions that combines competence assessment with healthcare preferences in a psychiatric population that faces identical stereotypes. The model, which draws on clinical research in competence and suicide risk assessment, has important implications for all patients in the community who are marginalized or stereotyped during discussions of end-of-life treatment

Borderline Personality Disorder: Considerations for Inclusion in the Massachusetts Parity List of Biologically-Based Disorders

Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a common and severe mental illness that is infrequently included under state mental health parity statutes. This review considers BPD parity, using the Massachusetts mental health parity statute as a model. While BPD can co-occur with other disorders, studies of its heritability, diagnostic validity/reliability, and response to specific treatments indicate it is best considered an independent disorder, one that negatively impacts the patient\u27s treatment response to comorbid disorders, particularly mood disorders. Persons with BPD are high utilizers of treatment, especially emergency departments and inpatient hospitalizations-the most expensive forms of psychiatric treatment. While some patients remain chronically symptomatic, the majority improve. The findings from psychopharmacologic and other biologic treatment data, coupled with associated brain functioning findings, indicate BPD is a biologically-based disorder. Clinical data indicate that accurately diagnosing and treating BPD conserves resources and improves outcomes. Based on this analysis, insuring BPD in the same manner as other serious mental illnesses is well-founded and recommended

MISSION Diversion & Recovery for Traumatized Veterans (MISSION DIRECT VET): Early Planning and Development

MISSION DIRECT VET is a SAMHSA- funded, court based diversion program targeting veterans in Massachusetts with trauma-related mental health and substance use problems. MISSION-DIRECT VET seeks to: Reduce criminal justice involvement Treat mental health, substance abuse and other trauma related symptoms Use a systematic wrap-around model Provide care coordination, peer support and trauma informed service

A multi-country analysis of COVID-19 hospitalizations by vaccination status

Background: Individuals vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), when infected, can still develop disease that requires hospitalization. It remains unclear whether these patients differ from hospitalized unvaccinated patients with regard to presentation, coexisting comorbidities, and outcomes. Methods: Here, we use data from an international consortium to study this question and assess whether differences between these groups are context specific. Data from 83,163 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (34,843 vaccinated, 48,320 unvaccinated) from 38 countries were analyzed. Findings: While typical symptoms were more often reported in unvaccinated patients, comorbidities, including some associated with worse prognosis in previous studies, were more common in vaccinated patients. Considerable between-country variation in both in-hospital fatality risk and vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated difference in this outcome was observed. Conclusions: These findings will inform allocation of healthcare resources in future surges as well as design of longer-term international studies to characterize changes in clinical profile of hospitalized COVID-19 patients related to vaccination history. Funding: This work was made possible by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome (215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z, and 220757/Z/20/Z); the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1209135); and the philanthropic support of the donors to the University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund (0009109). Additional funders are listed in the "acknowledgments" section

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable