Would decriminalising personal use of cannabis lead to higher rates of mental illness?

Removing criminal penalties for possession could increase adolescent use, say Bobby P Smyth, Mary Cannon, and Andrew Molodynski. But H Valerie Curran, Niamh Eastwood, and Adam R Winstock find no evidence for this and say that liberalisation of drug laws could reduce harms

A web-based clinical decision tool to support treatment decision-making in psychiatry: a pilot focus group study with clinicians, patients and carers

Background. Treatment decision tools have been developed in many fields of medicine, including psychiatry, however benefits for patients have not been sustained once the support is withdrawn. We have developed a web-based computerised clinical decision support tool (CDST), which can provide patients and clinicians with continuous, up-to-date, personalised information about the efficacy and tolerability of competing interventions. To test the feasibility and acceptability of the CDST we conducted a focus group study, aimed to explore the views of clinicians, patients and carers. Methods. The CDST was developed in Oxford. To tailor treatments at an individual level, the CDST combines the best available evidence from the scientific literature with patient preferences and values, and with patient medical profile to generate personalised clinical recommendations. We conducted three focus groups comprising of three different participant types: consultant psychiatrists, participants with mental health diagnosis and/or experience of caring for someone with a mental health diagnosis, and primary care practitioners and nurses. Each 1-hour focus group started with a short visual demonstration of the CDST. To standardise the discussion during the focus groups, we used the same topic guide that covered themes relating to the acceptability and usability of the CDST. Focus groups were recorded and any identifying participant details were anonymised. Data were analysed thematically and managed using the Framework method and the constant comparative method. Results. The focus groups took place in Oxford between October 2016 and January 2017. Overall 31 participants attended (12 consultants, 11 primary care practitioners and 8 patients or carers). The main themes that emerged related to CDST applications in clinical practice, communication, conflicting priorities and record keeping. CDST was considered a useful clinical decision support, with recognised value in promoting clinician-patient collaboration and contributing to the development of personalised medicine. One major benefit of the CDST was perceived to be the open discussion about the possible side-effects of medications. Participants from all the three groups, however, universally commented that the terminology and language presented on the CDST were too medicalised, potentially leading to ethical issues around consent to treatment. Conclusions. The CDST can improve communication pathways between patients, carers and clinicians, identifying care priorities and providing an up-to-date platform for implementing evidence-based practice, with regard to prescribing practices

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a technology-supported and solution-focused intervention (DIALOG plus ) in treatment of patients with chronic depression-study protocol for a multi-site, cluster randomised controlled trial [TACK]

Background Many with an acute depressive disorder go on to develop chronic depression, despite ongoing care. There are few specifically designed interventions to treat chronic depression. DIALOG+, a technology-assisted intervention based on the principles of solution-focused therapy, may be beneficial. It has been shown to be effective as a treatment for patients with psychotic disorders, especially in regards to increasing quality of life. DIALOG+ was designed to be flexibly applied and not diagnosis-specific, aiming to structure communication and generate a personally-tailored care plan. This cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) is part of a programme of research to adapt and test DIALOG+ for patients with chronic depression. Methods Patients will be eligible for the trial, if they have exhibited symptoms of depression or non-psychotic low mood for at least 2 years, have regular contact with a clinician and have a low subjective quality of life and moderate depressive symptoms. Clinicians, who routinely see eligible patients, will be recruited from a number of sites across NHS England. Clusters will have between 1 and 6 patients per clinician and will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention (DIALOG+) or active control group (treatment as usual + DIALOG scale). Clinicians in the intervention group are trained and asked to deliver the intervention regularly for 12 months. Active control participants receive treatment as usual and are asked to rate their satisfaction with areas of life and treatment on the DIALOG scale at the end of the clinical session. Approximately 112 clinician clusters will be recruited to reach a total patient sample size of 376. Clinical and social outcomes including costs are assessed at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcome will be subjective quality of life at 12 months. Discussion This definitive multi-site, cluster RCT aims to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of DIALOG+ for people with chronic depression. If shown to be effective for this patient population it could be used to improve outcomes of mental health care on a larger scale, ensuring that patients with complex and co-morbid diagnoses can benefit. Trial registration ISRCTN11301686. Registered on 13 Jun 2019

A web-based clinical decision tool to support treatment decision-making in psychiatry: a pilot focus group study with clinicians, patients and carers

Background. Treatment decision tools have been developed in many fields of medicine, including psychiatry, however benefits for patients have not been sustained once the support is withdrawn. We have developed a web-based computerised clinical decision support tool (CDST), which can provide patients and clinicians with continuous, up-to-date, personalised information about the efficacy and tolerability of competing interventions. To test the feasibility and acceptability of the CDST we conducted a focus group study, aimed to explore the views of clinicians, patients and carers. Methods. The CDST was developed in Oxford. To tailor treatments at an individual level, the CDST combines the best available evidence from the scientific literature with patient preferences and values, and with patient medical profile to generate personalised clinical recommendations. We conducted three focus groups comprising of three different participant types: consultant psychiatrists, participants with mental health diagnosis and/or experience of caring for someone with a mental health diagnosis, and primary care practitioners and nurses. Each 1-hour focus group started with a short visual demonstration of the CDST. To standardise the discussion during the focus groups, we used the same topic guide that covered themes relating to the acceptability and usability of the CDST. Focus groups were recorded and any identifying participant details were anonymised. Data were analysed thematically and managed using the Framework method and the constant comparative method. Results. The focus groups took place in Oxford between October 2016 and January 2017. Overall 31 participants attended (12 consultants, 11 primary care practitioners and 8 patients or carers). The main themes that emerged related to CDST applications in clinical practice, communication, conflicting priorities and record keeping. CDST was considered a useful clinical decision support, with recognised value in promoting clinician-patient collaboration and contributing to the development of personalised medicine. One major benefit of the CDST was perceived to be the open discussion about the possible side-effects of medications. Participants from all the three groups, however, universally commented that the terminology and language presented on the CDST were too medicalised, potentially leading to ethical issues around consent to treatment. Conclusions. The CDST can improve communication pathways between patients, carers and clinicians, identifying care priorities and providing an up-to-date platform for implementing evidence-based practice, with regard to prescribing practices

Different work capacity impairments in patients with different work-anxieties

Purpose: Persons with work-anxieties are especially endangered for work-impairment and sick-leave. Work-impairment is not directly due to symptoms but due to illness-related capacity impairments. Work capacity impairments can be described on different dimensions (e.g. social interaction, decision making and judgment, endurance, mobility). Understanding the type of work capacity impairment is important for reintegration interventions This is the first study to investigate work capacity impairment in risk-patients with different work-anxieties. Methods: Two hundred forty four patients in inpatient rehabilitation suffering from work-anxieties were investigated concerning degree of work capacity impairment. Capacity impairment was described on 13 capacity dimensions according to the internationally evaluated observer-rating Mini-ICF-APP (impairment grades 0-4, grade 2 and higher indicating clinically relevant observable impairment). A physician´s rating on global work ability prognosis was obtained, and sick-leave duration during six months after assessment. Patients with different work-anxieties were compared concerning capacity impairments. Results: Patients with different work-anxieties were impaired in different capacity dimensions: work-related social anxiety went along with clinically relevant impairment in capacity of assertiveness (M=2.40), anxiety of insufficiency went along with impaired capacity of endurance (M=2.20), work-related generalized worrying was accompanied by impairment in the capacity for decision making (M=1.82). Specific capacity impairment dimensions were related with sick-leave duration, while a global work ability prognosis was not. Conclusions: The capacity approach is useful to describe work-impairment more precisely and beyond symptoms. On this basis reintegration-focusing interventions such as capacity training (e.g. social interaction training) or work adjustment (e.g. reducing exposure with interactional work tasks) can be initiated

The organization of psychiatric services

Psychiatric services have evolved continuously since their inception. This evolution has accelerated recently, driven by various factors - increased understanding of psychiatric disorders and their treatment, the introduction of a welfare state, changes in societal attitudes, the move away from institutional care. With the move away from large institutions, systems of care have become increasingly complex, often with a number of different services operating in any one geographical area. Despite marked differences between services, all are characterized by multidisciplinary working, this is probably most evident in the community mental health team (CMHT). Increasingly, services have specialized, and the UK National Service Framework introduced the so-called 'functional teams' - assertive outreach, crisis resolution, and early intervention. Provision of these services does vary according to local need and resource. Different nations have developed services in different ways, and some noteworthy examples are presented. Finally, we briefly outline the key current issues in the organization of services, as we understand them. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Compulsion and freedom in community mental healthcare

In recent decades, there have been changes in the nature and delivery of mental healthcare, with the majority of patients now being cared for in the community. New legislation, currently being enacted in England and Wales, will give clinicians the power to compel patients to comply with community treatment. These changes in law and service delivery have led to debate about the extent to which treatment pressures should be used to limit patients' freedom in the community. This contribution outlines recent changes in mental health services and describes how different pressures are used in clinical practice to impose treatment in the community. It summarizes current legislation allowing for compulsory community treatment, provides an overview of new amendments to mental health laws in England and Wales, and explores why balancing compulsion and freedom in the community is such a contested issue. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved