Search

The new RANZCP guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders highlights what we know works. In this paper, we examine why patients so often fail to benefit from this knowledge and why clinical practice falls so far short of the recommended standard. Instead of the continuous improvement that we expect of health care in general, in psychiatry we face an accelerating decline in systems of care. There has been a sustained underinvestment in public mental health care and a shared failure by State and Federal governments to construct and commit to a governance and funding model that can deliver the standard of care that is available in other major non-communicable diseases, and which we know is equally possible for severe mental illness. This paper sets out some of the reasons for the poor quality of care received by many people with schizophrenia and related disorders in Australia, and describes ways that care could be improved. In particular, we recommend an explicit statement of what constitutes an adequate standard of care, for people at all stages of these illnesses. This would help provide transparency about whether the care provided by mental health services achieves these benchmarks, and enable publication of results comparing the performance of different states and regional services. Patients and families, as well as professional, consumer and carer organizations would then be able to see clearly where the deficits are and demand resources and care that match the recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of recovery has been embraced by key stakeholders across Canada and elsewhere. This has led to a proliferation of definitions, models, and research on recovery, making it vitally important to examine the data to disentangle the evidence from the rhetoric. In this paper, first we ask, what do people living with severe mental illness (SMI) say about recovery in autobiographical accounts? Second, what do they say about recovery in qualitative studies? Third, from what we have uncovered about recovery, can we learn anything from quantitative studies about proportions of people leading lives of recovery? Finally, can we identify interventions and approaches that may be consistent or inconsistent with the grounded notions of recovery unearthed in this paper? We found that people with mental illness frequently state that recovery is a journey, characterized by a growing sense of agency and autonomy, as well as greater participation in normative activities, such as employment, education, and community life. However, the evidence suggests that most people with SMI still live in a manner inconsistent with recovery; for example, their unemployment rate is over 80%, and they are disproportionately vulnerable to homelessness, stigma, and victimization. Research stemming from rehabilitation science suggests that recovery can be enhanced by various evidence-based services, such as supported employment, as well as by clinical approaches, such as shared decision making and peer support. But these are not routinely available. As such, significant systemic changes are necessary to truly create a recovery-oriented mental health system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Recognizing the prodrome of a first psychotic episode prospectively creates the opportunity of intervention, which could delay, ameliorate or even prevent onset. Valid criteria and a reliable methodology for identifying possible prodromes are needed. This paper describes an instrument, the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS), which has been designed for such a purpose. It has two functions: (i) to assess psychopathology thought to indicate imminent development of a first-episode psychotic disorder; and (ii) to determine if an individual meets criteria for being at ultra high risk (UHR) for onset of first psychotic disorder. This paper describes the pilot evaluation of the CAARMS. Method: Several methodologies were used to test the CAARMS. First, CAARMS scores in a group of UHR young people and the association between CAARMS scores and the risk of transition to psychotic disorder, were analysed. Second, CAARMS scores in a UHR group were compared to a control group. To assess concurrent validity, CAARMS-defined UHR criteria were compared to the existing criteria for identifying the UHR cohort. To assess predictive validity, the CAARMS-defined UHR criteria were applied to a sample of 150 non-psychotic help-seekers and rates of onset of psychotic disorder at 6-month follow-up determined for the CAARMS-positive (i.e. met UHR criteria) group and the CAARMS-negative (i.e. did not meet UHR criteria) group. The inter-rater reliability of the CAARMS was assessed by using pairs of raters. Results: High CAARMS score in the UHR group was significantly associated with onset of psychotic disorder. The control group had significantly lower CAARMS scores than the UHR group. The UHR criteria assessed by the CAARMS identified a similar group to the criteria measured by existing methodology. In the sample of non-psychotic help-seekers those who were CAARMS-positive were at significantly increased risk of onset of psychotic disorder compared to those who were CAARMS-negative (relative risk of 12.44 (95% CI = 1.5–103.41, p = 0.0025)). The CAARMS had good to excellent reliability. Conclusions: In these preliminary investigations, the CAARMS displayed good to excellent concurrent, discriminant and predictive validity and excellent inter-rater reliability. The CAARMS instrument provides a useful platform for monitoring subthreshold psychotic symptoms for worsening into full-threshold psychotic disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists is co-ordinating the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in psychiatry, funded under the National Mental Health Strategy (Australia) and the New Zealand Health Funding Authority. This paper presents CPGs for schizophrenia and related disorders. Over the past decade schizophrenia has become more treatable than ever before. A new generation of drug therapies, a renaissance of psychological and psychosocial interventions and a first generation of reform within the specialist mental health system have combined to create an evidence-based climate of realistic optimism. Progressive neuroscientific advances hold out the strong possibility of more definitive biological treatments in the near future. However, this improved potential for better outcomes and quality of life for people with schizophrenia has not been translated into reality in Australia. The efficacy-effectiveness gap is wider for schizophrenia than any other serious medical disorder. Therapeutic nihilism, under-resourcing of services and a stalling of the service reform process, poor morale within specialist mental health services, a lack of broad-based recovery and life support programs, and a climate of tenacious stigma and consequent lack of concern for people with schizophrenia are the contributory causes for this failure to effectively treat. These guidelines therefore tackle only one element in the endeavour to reduce the impact of schizophrenia. They distil the current evidence-base and make recommendations based on the best available knowledge.A comprehensive literature review (1990−2003) was conducted, including all Cochrane schizophrenia reviews and all relevant meta-analyses, and a number of recent international clinical practice guidelines were consulted. A series of drafts were refined by the expert committee and enhanced through a bi-national consultation process.This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of schizophrenia by treatment type and by phase of illness. The essential features of the guidelines are: (i) Early detection and comprehensive treatment of first episode cases is a priority since the psychosocial and possibly the biological impact of illness can be minimized and outcome improved. An optimistic attitude on the part of health professionals is an essential ingredient from the outset and across all phases of illness. (ii) Comprehensive and sustained intervention should be assured during the initial 3−5 years following diagnosis since course of illness is strongly influenced by what occurs in this‘critical period’. Patients should not have to‘prove chronicity’ before they gain consistent access and tenure to specialist mental health services. (iii) Antipsychotic medication is the cornerstone of treatment. These medicines have improved in quality and tolerability, yet should be used cautiously and in a more targeted manner than in the past. The treatment of choice for most patients is now the novel antipsychotic medications because of their superior tolerability and, in particular, the reduced risk of tardive dyskinesia. This is particularly so for the first episode patient where, due to superior tolerability, novel agents are the first, second and third line choice. These novel agents are nevertheless associated with potentially serious medium to long-term side-effects of their own for which patients must be carefully monitored. Conventional antipsychotic medications in low dosage may still have a role in a small proportion of patients, where there has been full remission and good tolerability; however, the indications are shrinking progressively. These principles are now accepted in most developed countries. (vi) Clozapine should be used early in the course, as soon as treatment resistance to at least two antipsychotics has been demonstrated. This usually means incomplete remission of positive symptomatology, but clozapine may also be considered where there are pervasive negative symptoms or significant or persistent suicidal risk is present. (v) Comprehensive psychosocial interventions should be routinely available to all patients and their families, and provided by appropriately trained mental health professionals with time to devote to the task. This includes family interventions, cognitive-behaviour therapy, vocational rehabilitation and other forms of therapy, especially for comorbid conditions, such as substance abuse, depression and anxiety. (vi) The social and cultural environment of people with schizophrenia is an essential arena for intervention. Adequate shelter, financial security, access to meaningful social roles and availability of social support are essential components of recovery and quality of life. (vii) Interventions should be carefully tailored to phase and stage of illness, and to gender and cultural background. (viii) Genuine involvement of consumers and relatives in service development and provision should be standard. (ix) Maintenance of good physical health and prevention and early treatment of serious medical illness has been seriously neglected in the management of schizophrenia, and results in premature death and widespread morbidity. Quality of medical care for people with schizophrenia should be equivalent to the general community standard. (x) General practitioners (GPs)s should always be closely involved in the care of people with schizophrenia. However, this should be truly shared care, and sole care by a GP with minimal or no specialist involvement, while very common, is not regarded as an acceptable standard of care. Optimal treatment of schizophrenia requires a multidisciplinary team approach with a consultant psychiatrist centrally involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This is the first of two papers that aim to identify some of the institutional processes of 19th century European psychiatry, and some prevailing cultural themes of that era that played a role in shaping the development of schizophrenia as a disease concept. Method: Three areas of psychiatric history are examined: the first is concerned with the key figures who coined the concept of dementia praecox; the second with the rise of the asylum; and the third is to do with the ideology of 19th century psychiatric science and its relationship to a broader intellectual milieu. These three literatures are examined for common themes. Results: The theme of degeneration is evident in all three literatures, and denotes both a biological process (neuro-degeneration) and a moral state (degeneracy). Conclusions: The idea of degeneration, a pervasive cultural theme of the 19th century, dominated psychiatric thinking long before schizophrenia was developed as a diagnostic category. It contributed to the ideational form-work that gave foundation, structure and shape to the concept of schizophrenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]