The effects of crisis plans for patients with psychotic and bipolar disorders: A randomised controlled trial

Background: Crises and (involuntary) admissions have a strong impact on patients and their caregivers. In some countries, including the Netherlands, the number of crises and (involuntary) admissions have increased in the last years. There is also a lack of effective interventions to prevent their occurrence. Previous research has shown that a form of psychiatric advance statement - joint crisis plan - may prevent involuntary admissions, but another study showed no significant results for another form. The question remains which form of psychiatric advance statement may help to prevent crisis situations. This study examines the effects of two other psychiatric advance statements. The first is created by the patient with help from a patient's advocate (Patient Advocate Crisis Plan: PACP) and the second with the help of a clinician only (Clinician facilitated Crisis Plan: CCP). We investigate whether patients with a PACP or CCP show fewer emergency visits and (involuntary) admissions as compared to patients without a psychiatric advance statement. Furthermore, this study seeks to identify possible mechanisms responsible for the effects of a PACP or a CCP. Methods/Design: This study is a randomised controlled trial with two intervention groups and one control condition. Both interventions consist of a crisis plan, facilitated through the patient's advocate or the clinician respectively. Outpatients with psychotic or bipolar disorders, who experienced at least one psychiatric crisis during the previous two years, are randomly allocated to one of the three groups. Primary outcomes are the number of emergency (after hour) visits, (involuntary) admissions and the length of stay in hospital. Secondary outcomes include psychosocial fun

Patients’ Preference and Experiences of Forced Medication and Seclusion

This study examined patients’ preferences for coercive methods and the extent to which patients’ choices were determined by previous experience, demographic, clinical and intervention-setting variables. Before discharge from closed psychiatric units, 161 adult patients completed a questionnaire. The association between patients’ preferences and the underlying variables was analyzed using logistic regression. We found that patients’ preferences were mainly defined by earlier experiences: patients without coercive experiences or who had had experienced seclusion and forced medication, favoured forced medication. Those who had been secluded preferred seclusion in future emergencies, but only if they approved its duration. This suggests that seclusion, if it does not last too long, does not have to be abandoned from psychiatric practices. In an emergency, however, most patients prefer to be medicated. Our findings show that patients’ preferences cannot guide the establishment of international uniform methods for managing violent behaviour. Therefore patients’ individual choices should be considered

CRIMSON [CRisis plan IMpact: Subjective and Objective coercion and eNgagement] Protocol: A randomised controlled trial of joint crisis plans to reduce compulsory treatment of people with psychosis

Background: The use of compulsory treatment under the Mental Health Act (MHA) has continued to rise in the UK and in other countries. The Joint Crisis Plan (JCP) is a statement of service users' wishes for treatment in the event of a future mental health crisis. It is developed with the clinical team and an independent facilitator. A recent pilot RCT showed a reduction in the use of the MHA amongst service users with a JCP. The JCP is the only intervention that has been shown to reduce compulsory treatment in this way. The CRIMSON trial aims to determine if JCPs, compared with treatment as usual, are effective in reducing the use of the MHA in a range of treatment settings across the UK. Methods/Design: This is a 3 centre, individual-level, single-blind, randomised controlled trial of the JCP compared with treatment as usual for people with a history of relapsing psychotic illness in Birmingham, London and Lancashire/Manchester. 540 service users will be recruited across the three sites. Eligible service users will be adults with a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder (including bipolar disorder), treated in the community under the Care Programme Approach with at least one admission to a psychiatric inpatient ward in the previous two years. Current inpatients and those subject to a community treatment order will be excluded to avoid any potential perceived pressure to participate. Research assessments will be conducted at baseline and 18 months. Following the baseline assessment, eligible service users will be randomly allocated to either develop a Joint Crisis Plan or continue with treatment as usual. Outcome will be assessed at 18 months with assessors blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome is the proportion of service users treated or otherwise detained under an order of the Mental Health Act (MHA) during the follow-up period, compared across randomisation groups. Secondary outcomes include overall costs, service user engagement, perceived coercion and therapeutic relationships. Sub-analyses will explore the effectiveness of the JCP in reducing use of the MHA specifically for Black Caribbean and Black African service users (combined). Qualitative investigations with staff and service users will explore the acceptability of the JCPs. Discussion: JCPs offer a potential solution to the rise of compulsory treatment for individuals with psychotic disorders and, if shown to be effective in this trial, they are likely to be of interest to mental health service providers worldwide

Patients' beliefs towards contingency management: target behaviours, incentives and the remote application of these interventions

Abstract: Introduction: Contingency management interventions are among the most efficacious psychosocial interventions in promoting abstinence from smoking, alcohol and substance use. The aim of this study was to assess the beliefs and objections towards contingency management among patients in UK‐based drug and alcohol services to help understand barriers to uptake and support the development and implementation of these interventions. Methods: The Service User Survey of Incentives was developed and implemented among patients (N = 181) at three UK‐based drug and alcohol treatment services. Descriptive analyses were conducted to ascertain positive and negative beliefs about contingency management, acceptability of different target behaviours, incentives and delivery mechanisms including delivering incentives remotely using technology devices such as mobile telephones. Results: Overall, 81% of participants were in favour of incentive programs, with more than 70% of respondents agreeing with the majority of positive belief statements. With the exception of two survey items, less than a third of participants agreed with negative belief statements. The proportion of participants indicating a neutral response was higher for negative statements (27%) indicating greater levels of ambiguity towards objections and concerns regarding contingency management. Discussion and Conclusions: Positive beliefs towards contingency management interventions were found, including high levels of acceptability towards a range of target behaviours, incentives and the use of technology devices to remotely monitor behaviour and deliver incentives. These findings have implications for the development and implementation of remote contingency management interventions within the UK drug treatment services