Toward managed care for persons with severe mental illness: implications from a cost-effectiveness study. A controlled trial of home-based acute psychiatric services. I: Clinical and social outcome. Home-based versus hospital-based care for people with serious mental illness. A comparative trial of home and hospital psychiatric care. One-year follow-up. Randomized trial of general hospital and residential alternative care for patients with severe and persistent mental illness.
Over the past two decades various models of community-based care for persons with severe mental illness have been developed. This study, which represents the first comparison of the most successful care approach (Program of Assertive Community Treatment or PACT adaptation model) with other, less intensive approaches (clinical team and intensive broker models) in a community service system, indicates that client outcomes were more positive in the PACT adaptation model in terms of enhanced psychosocial functioning and reduced acute and subacute care costs. The PACT model was not significantly more expensive in terms of the costs of providing supportive services compared with the clinical team approach and the intensive broker model of care. While research has shown community-based psychiatric care to be as good as, or better than, hospital-based care, generalisation to clinical practice has been difficult. This prospective, randomised controlled study examined a community-based approach feasible within NHS conditions. Ninety-four patients were randomly allocated to experimental and 78 to control treatments and followed for one year. The groups were well matched apart from an excess of psychotic control patients. No differences in clinical or social functioning outcome were found. Both groups improved substantially on clinical measures in the first six weeks, with some slow consolidation thereafter. There were three suicides in the control group and one in the experimental group. Access to care was better in the experimental group (93% attended assessment) than in the control group (75% attended assessment). A controlled study tested whether the superior outcome of community care for serious mental illness (SMI) in Madison and in Sydney would also be found in inner London.
                Patients from an inner London catchment area who faced emergency admission for SMI (many were violent or suicidal) were randomised to 20 months or more of either home-based care (Daily Living Programme, DLP; n = 92), or standard in-patient and later out-patient care (controls, n = 97). Most DLP patients had brief in-patient stays at some time. Measures included number and duration of in-patient admissions, independent ratings of clinical and social function, and patients' and relatives' satisfaction.
                Outcome was superior with home-based care. Until month 20, DLP care improved symptoms and social adjustment slightly more, and enhanced patients' and relatives' satisfaction. From 3 to 18 months DLP care greatly reduced the number of in-patient bed days as long as the DLP team was responsible for any in-patient phase its patients had. Cost was less. DLP care did not reduce the number of admissions, nor of deaths from self-harm (3 DLP, 2 control). One DLP patient killed a child. Even at 20 months many DLP and control patients still had severe symptoms, poor social adjustment, no job, and need for assertive follow-up and heavy staff input. (Beyond 20 months most gains were lost apart from satisfaction.)
                It is unclear how much the gain until 20 months from home-based care was due to its site of care, its being problem-centred, its teaching of daily living skills, its assertive follow-up, the home care team's keeping responsibility for any in-patient phase, its coordination of total care (case management), or to other care components. Home-based care is hard to organise and vulnerable to many factors, and needs careful training and clinical audit if gains are to be sustained. The effectiveness of community-based treatment stressing home care was compared with hospital-based psychiatric care. One hundred and fifty-five patients destined for inpatient psychiatric care were randomly assigned to Home Care (76 patients) and to Hospital Care (79 patients). Symptoms, role functioning, and psychosocial burden on the family were similar at admission, one month, three months, six months, and one year. The mean in-hospital stay of Hospital Care patients was 41.7 days compared with a mean stay of 14.5 days for Home Care patients. The difference in the amount of ambulatory care received by patients in the two groups was not significant. The evidence is consistent: community-based psychiatric care is an effective alternative to hospital-based care for many but not all severely disabled patients. The active ingredients of successful community treatment are known, yet the lag in implementing these programs persists. Severe and persistent mental illnesses are often lifelong and characterized by intermittent exacerbations requiring hospitalization. Providing needed care within budgetary constraints to this largely publicly subsidized population requires technologies that reduce costly inpatient episodes. The authors report a prospective randomized trial to test the clinical effectiveness of a model of acute residential alternative treatment for patients with persistent mental illness requiring hospital-level care.
                Patients enrolled in the Montgomery County, Md., public mental health system who experienced an illness exacerbation and were willing to accept voluntary treatment were randomly assigned to the acute psychiatric ward of a general hospital or a community residential alternative. There were no psychopathology-based exclusion criteria. Treatment episode symptom improvement, satisfaction, discharge status, and 6-month pre- and postepisode acute care utilization, psychosocial functioning, and patient satisfaction were assessed.
                Of 185 patients, 119 (64%) were successfully placed at their assigned treatment site. Case mix data indicated that patients treated in the hospital (N = 50) and the alternative (N = 69) were comparably ill. Treatment episode symptom reduction and patient satisfaction were comparable for the two settings. Nine (13%) of 69 patients randomly assigned to the alternative required transfer to a hospital unit; two (4%) of 50 patients randomly assigned to the hospital could not be stabilized and required transfer to another facility. Psychosocial functioning, satisfaction, and acute care use in the 6 months following admission were comparable for patients treated in the two settings and did not differ significantly from functioning before the acute episode.
                Hospitalization is a frequent and high-cost consequence of severe mental illness. For patients who do not require intensive general medical intervention and are willing to accept voluntary treatment, the alternative program model studied provides outcomes comparable to those of hospital care.
Care based on crisis intervention principles, with or without an ongoing home care package, appears to be a viable and acceptable way of treating people with serious mental illnesses. If this approach is to be widely implemented it would seem that more evaluative studies are still needed.