“Caring for a Crisis”: Care and Control in Community Mental Health

In the debate on coercion in psychiatry, care and control are often juxtaposed. In this article we argue that this dichotomy is not useful to describe the more complex ways service users, care professionals and the specific care setting interrelate in a community mental health team (CMHT). Using the ethnographic approach of empirical ethics, we contrast the ways in which control and care go together in situations of a psychiatric crisis in two CMHT's: one in Trieste (Italy) and one in Utrecht (the Netherlands). The Dutch and Italian CMHT's are interesting to compare, because they differ with regard to the way community care is organized, the amount of coercive measures, the number of psychiatric beds, and the fact that Trieste applies an open door policy in all care settings. Contrasting the two teams can teach us how in situations of psychiatric crisis control and care interrelate in different choreographies. We use the term choreography as a metaphor to encapsulate the idea of a crisis situation as a set of coordinated actions from different actors in time and space. This provides two choreographies of handling a crisis in different ways. We argue that applying a strict boundary between care and control hinders the use of the relationship between caregiver and patient in care.

Inter-rater variability in scoring of Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination – third edition (ACE-III)

Background: Despite its wide use in dementia diagnosis on the basis of cut-off points, the inter-rater variability of the ACE-III has been poorly studied.Methods: 31 healthcare professionals from an older adults’ mental health team scored two ACE-III protocols based on mock patients in a computerised form. Scoring accuracy, as well as total and domain-specific scoring variability, were calculated; factors relevant to participants were obtained, including their level of experience and self-rated confidence administering the ACE-III.Results: There was considerable inter-rater variability (up to 18 points for one of the cases), and one case’s mean score was significantly higher (by four points) than the true score. The Fluency, Visuospatial and Attention domains had greater levels of variability than Language and Memory. Higher levels of scoring accuracy were not associated with either greater levels of experience not higher self-confidence in administering the ACE-III.Conclusions: The results suggest that the ACE-III is susceptible to scoring error and considerable inter-rater variability, which highlights the critical importance of initial, and continued, administration and scoring training.

The Mark Sheldon Remote Mental Health Team: an evaluation of patient demographics, diagnoses and clinical management in very remote Central Australia

Objective: The Mark Sheldon Remote Mental Health Team provides psychiatric services to 29 communities in very remote Central Australia. This study evaluated Mark Sheldon Remote Mental Health Team patient demographics, diagnoses and clinical management. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional review was performed for January 2020. Variables included age, sex, Indigenous status, diagnosis, legal status, medication class and route of administration. Results: A total of 180 patients were identified (85.6% Indigenous, 53.3% male). Schizophrenia and delusional disorders were most common (41.1%). A small proportion of patients (2.8%) were involuntary. Psychotropic medication was commonly prescribed (77.4%) with a low threshold for anti-psychotic depot use (51.5%). Oral medication rates varied according to class. Conclusions: This study provided insights into the demographic and clinical profile of a unique population. The findings will help to optimise patient management in very remote Central Australia and serve as a foundation for similar evaluations and comparisons with other remote psychiatric services.

Before writing that script: use of antipsychotic medication in patients with dementia in a CMHTOA

AimsA 2009 independent review commissioned by the UK government to review the use of antipsychotic medication in patients diagnosed with dementia produced the Time for Action report, often referred to as the Banerjee Report. It highlighted the common practise of using antipsychotics in the treatment of Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD) and the clinical issues this could raise especially when these medications were not being regularly reviewed. The audti was therefore carried out to determine whether patinets with BPSD in a Community Mental Health Team for Older adults (CMHTOA) in Mid Surrey, who had been diagnosed with BPSD, were being adequately assessed and managed in line with the current guidelines.MethodPatients with a diagnosis of dementia open to one of three teams in the CMHTOA during the months of October and November 2019 were identified, those being prescribed antipsychotic medication were selected and data from their electronic records collected and analysed to determine if clinicians: a) identified and documented the target behaviours, b) carried out a structured assessment using an ABC chart before commencing medication, c) reviewed the antipsychotic medication 6 weeks after it was commenced.ResultOf the 87 patients with a diagnosis of Dementia from October to November 2019, 18 were on antipsychotic medication. 100% of these had target behaviours identified and clearly documented, a sixth had a structured assessment prior to starting medication and 61% had been reviewed after the first 6 weeks of starting antipsychotics.ConclusionThe findings showed that a good proprotion of patients did not have the required structured assessment before commencement of treatment and that more needed to be done by way of improving regular reviews after antipsychotic treatment is commenced.

Patient factors associated with the use of psychotropic polypharmacy in patients under the care of a community mental health team in the West of Ireland

AimsPsychiatric polypharmacy refers to the prescription of two or more psychotropic medications to any one patient. This definition is purely quantitative and does not take into account whether such a prescription is detrimental, or unnecessary. In many cases, polypharmacy has been implemented in challenging illnesses, and some studies have shown that it can improve overall outcomes for certain patients. Evidence suggests that the prevalence of psychotropic polypharmacy is increasing, despite advances in psychosocial interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the current prevalence of polypharmacy among patients being treated by a community mental health team (CMHT), and the patient factors associated with its use.MethodWe performed a cross-sectional study of all patients registered with a CMHT in a mixed urban/rural area on a single date. Case records were examined to determine the most recently prescribed drug regimen for each patient. Clinical chart diagnoses were recorded and each one independently verified by the team consultant using ICD-10. A number other sociodemographic variables were recorded. Using Microsoft Excel, we analysed the medications prescribed as well as rates and levels of polypharmacy based on multiple different patient characteristics.ResultOf the 245 patients, the mean age was 56.3 and 51.2% (n = 126) were female. Psychotropic polypharmacy was seen in 62% (n = 152) of patients. 33% (n = 82) of patients were on two psychotropic medications, and of this subset, a combination of one antipsychotic and one antidepressant was the most common drug regimen, seen in 16.7% (n = 41) of all patients. Polypharmacy was more prevalent in females, with 68% (n = 85) being on two or more psychotropics, in comparison to 58% of male patients. In relation to age, patients aged between 51 to 65 years had the highest prevalence of polypharmacy, at a rate of 71% (n = 49). Among all primary diagnoses, polypharmacy was most common in patients with affective disorders, with 80% (n = 40) of this patient cohort on two or more medications. Second to this was psychotic disorders, with polypharmacy seen in 65% (n = 62) of this group.ConclusionWe found that psychotropic polypharmacy is highly prevalent in psychiatric patients being treated in a community setting. Certain demographics and patient factors, such as age, gender and psychiatric diagnosis influenced the rate of polypharmacy and certain drug combinations were more commonly prescribed than others.