Supporting good practice in the provision of services to people with comorbid mental health and alcohol and other drug problems in Australia: describing key elements of good service models

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The co-occurrence of mental illness and substance use problems (referred to as "comorbidity" in this paper) is common, and is often reported by service providers as the expectation rather than the exception. Despite this, many different treatment service models are being used in the alcohol and other drugs (AOD) and mental health (MH) sectors to treat this complex client group. While there is abundant literature in the area of comorbidity treatment, no agreed overarching framework to describe the range of service delivery models is apparent internationally or at the national level. The aims of the current research were to identify and describe elements of good practice in current service models of treatment of comorbidity in Australia. The focus of the research was on models of service delivery. The research did not aim to measure the client outcomes achieved by individual treatment services, but sought to identify elements of good practice in services.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Australian treatment services were identified to take part in the study through a process of expert consultation. The intent was to look for similarities in the delivery models being implemented across a diverse set of services that were perceived to be providing good quality treatment for people with comorbidity problems.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A survey was designed based on a concept map of service delivery devised from a literature review. Seventeen Australian treatment services participated in the survey, which explored the context in which services operate, inputs such as organisational philosophy and service structure, policies and procedures that guide the way in which treatment is delivered by the service, practices that reflect the way treatment is provided to clients, and client impacts.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The treatment of people with comorbidity of mental health and substance use disorders presents complex problems that require strong but flexible service models. While the treatment services included in this study reflected the diversity of settings and approaches described in the literature, the research found that they shared a range of common characteristics. These referred to: service linkages; workforce; policies, procedures and practices; and treatment.</p

Treatment Outcome in Patients Receiving Assertive Community Treatment

In an observational study of severely mentally ill patients treated in assertive community treatment (ACT) teams, we investigated how treatment outcome was associated with demographic factors, clinical factors, and motivation for treatment. To determine psychosocial outcome, patients were routinely assessed using the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Trends over time were analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures. The HoNOS total score was modeled as a function of treatment duration and patient-dependent covariates. Data comprised 637 assessments of 139 patients; mean duration of follow-up was 27.4 months (SD = 5.4). Substance abuse, higher age, problems with motivation, and lower educational level were associated with higher HoNOS total scores (i.e., worse outcome). To improve treatment outcome, we recommend better implementation of ACT, and also the implementation of additional programs targeting subgroups which seem to benefit less from ACT

Dual diagnosis clients' treatment satisfaction - a systematic review

Background: The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize existing evidence about treatment satisfaction among clients with substance misuse and mental health co-morbidity (dual diagnoses, DD). Methods: We examined satisfaction with treatment received, variations in satisfaction levels by type of treatment intervention and by diagnosis (i.e. DD clients vs. single diagnosis clients), and the influence of factors other than treatment type on satisfaction. Peer-reviewed studies published in English since 1970 were identified by searching electronic databases using pre-defined search strings. Results: Across the 27 studies that met inclusion criteria, high average satisfaction scores were found. In most studies, integrated DD treatment yielded greater client satisfaction than standard treatment without explicit DD focus. In standard treatment without DD focus, DD clients tended to be less satisfied than single diagnosis clients. Whilst the evidence base on client and treatment variables related to satisfaction is small, it suggested client demographics and symptom severity to be unrelated to treatment satisfaction. However, satisfaction tended to be linked to other treatment process and outcome variables. Findings are limited in that many studies had very small sample sizes, did not use validated satisfaction instruments and may not have controlled for potential confounders. A framework for further research in this important area is discussed. Conclusions: High satisfaction levels with current treatment provision, especially among those in integrated treatment, should enhance therapeutic optimism among practitioners dealing with DD clients