Search

Aims and MethodTo investigate changes to admissions, compulsory detentions, diagnosis, length of stay and suicides following introduction of crisis resolution home treatment and assertive outreach teams.ResultsThere was a 45% reduction in admissions with an increase in the median length of stay from 15.5 to 25 days. Bed occupancy fell by 22%. The number of suicides remained constant. Detentions under sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 increased whereas those under sections 5(2) and 5(4) declined.Clinical ImplicationsThe introduction of crisis and assertive outreach teams was followed by a reduction in admissions, particularly short admissions. The impact differed according to gender (reduction in female bed occupancy). This and the increased length of stay need to be considered when determining the number of acute psychiatric beds needed.

Assertive community treatment (ACT) was developed in the early 1970s as a means of coordinating the care of people with severe mental illness in the community. A Cochrane review of the effectiveness of ACT for the general adult population found that people receiving ACT were more likely to engage with services, and were less likely to be admitted to hospital (Marshall & Lockwood, 2000). The National Service Framework for Mental Health (Department of Health, 1999) and the NHS Plan (Department of Health, 2000) called for a total of 220 assertive outreach teams by April 2003.

Aims and MethodAlthough financial incentives to improve treatment adherence have been found effective in various medical specialties, there are few systematic data on their use, ethical background and effectiveness in psychiatry. We explored the practice of and possible ethical problems associated with direct financial incentives to improve adherence in assertive outreach teams in England. We also report clinical observations of a money for medication scheme with five assertive outreach patients in East London.ResultsNone of the assertive outreach teams that responded to the survey (response rate 47%) uses financial incentives. Attitudes of team managers towards the practice were mostly negative, often regarding it as unethical. Specific concerns were related to possible coercion and a negative impact on the therapeutic relationship. Out of five patients studied, four accepted the offer of money and had improved adherence; three remained without hospital admission since entering the scheme.Clinical ImplicationsMoney for medication might be a non-coercive and effective option to achieve medication adherence in otherwise non-adherent assertive outreach patients. However, ethical issues need further exploration and controlled trials are required to establish the effectiveness.

Aims and MethodThe aim was to record the prevalence, type and severity of personality disorder dealt with by an inner-city outreach team. Patients on the register of an assertive outreach team were approached and asked to give informed consent for an informant interview with their principal worker to determine their personality status, using the informant-based ICD–10 version of the Personality Assessment Schedule.ResultsOf the 73 patients, 62 (85%) of whom had a psychotic diagnosis, 67 (92%) had at least one personality disorder, with 37 (51%) having complex or severe personality disorders.Clinical ImplicationsThe findings suggest that the National Service Framework requirements for assertive outreach teams tend to select many patients with comorbid personality disorder in addition to other severe psychiatric disorders.

This study investigated the knowledge and attitude of 100 patients about their depot neuroleptic medication. Patients were well informed about their medication, particularly those seen in depot clinics. Most patients were content with service delivery but 48% did not realise that they had a choice about receiving their treatment. This aspect of patients' rights should be addressed and demands sensitive management in the case of depot refusers, or when assertive outreach is planned. We suggest that such issues should be incorporated into an educational programme and discussed with patients when they are relatively well.

The first 18 months of operation of a team providing high intensity case management is presented. A key-worker/co-worker system was adopted, with regular team meetings to review the progress of all clients. Low case-loads (10 clients per case manager) enabled the team to carry out detailed assessments of need, offer assertive outreach and crisis intervention and coordinate complex packages of community care. The case management team provided an accessible and effective service. However, not all patients appeared to benefit and the intensive nature of the work was very demanding on staff.

It is one of the failures of contemporary psychiatry that many patients who respond well to neuroleptic medication given to them when they are in-patients relapse after discharge due to not taking any further medication. Those working closely with the acute psychiatric patient in the community are often forced to stand by powerlessly as a patient deteriorates, causing damage to himself and his social milieu until such a point is reached when he is again ill enough to warrant compulsory admission and treatment. This process is, of course, devastating for a patient's family and also disheartening for professionals involved, and is perhaps partly responsible for the high turnover of staff involved in front line services. Even if assertive outreach methods are employed such as those involved in a number of comprehensive community-based programmes (Stein & Test, 1980; Borland et al, 1989) so that contact with the patient is not lost, it is not possible without the necessary legislation to enforce treatment in the community.

Following the National Service Framework (Department of Health, 2004) recommendation of extending the age range of child and adolescent mental health services to 18 years there is an increasing expectation that these generic services will provide the comprehensive care for severe mental health problems in areas where specialist teams do not exist. Services have responded to this with a variety of teams from generic adolescent teams to smaller first-onset psychosis or assertive outreach teams.

This report describes three services supported by the Working Together in London Programme, a partnership of the King’s Fund, the Sainsbury Centre and the Department of Health. A chapter discussing ‘assertive outreach’ suggests all three services use assertive outreach principles, but only one

The concept of non-engagement lies at the heart of the Assertive Outreach Team (AOT) model ([Stein & Test, 1980][1]). However, in our experience there is widespread misunderstanding within mental health services about what this term means. Apart from non-engagement, the other primary criterion for

As members of an assertive outreach team covering a socially deprived area of south-west Dublin, we read with interest the paper on money for medication by Claassen et al ( Psychiatric Bulletin , January 2007, 31 , 4-7) and congratulate the authors for applying contingency management measures, which

Assertive outreach practitioners will be drawn to a new British publication on this topic, but they may be puzzled by its subheading: A Strengths Approach to Policy and Practice . The strengths model attracts relatively little direct acknowledgement in psychiatry, being more a set of values than a

[][1] ‘This is a handbook primarily for practitioners and not for academics or researchers.’ So write Tom Burns & Mike Firn in the opening sentence of the final chapter in their book. I would agree. This is a readable, practical manual covering all aspects of the origins

Leonard Stein, one of the original proponents of assertive outreach, was keen to reduce the ‘pathological dependency’ he felt was implicit in the individual keyworker model. Thus developed the ‘whole team approach’; all the members of a team work with all the patients and share clinical