A Malhotra and colleagues explain how and why a US initiative to get doctors to stop using interventions with no benefit is being brought to the UK

There is now robust evidence in the literature that CTOs have no significant effects on hospitalisation and other service use outcomes. Non-randomised studies continue to report conflicting results. Distinguishing between CTO recall and revocation and different patterns of community contact is needed in future research to ensure differentiation between CTO process and outcome.

Background Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis.Methods We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14-18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data on trial referral and recruitment, session attendance or medication adherence, retention, and treatment acceptability) and the proposed primary efficacy outcome was total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at 6 months. Primary outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported according to as-treated status, for all patients who had received at least one session of CBT or family intervention, or at least one dose of antipsychotics. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433. Findings Of 101 patients referred to the study, 61 patients (mean age 16•3 years [SD 1•3]) were recruited fromApril 10, 2017, to Oct 31, 2018, 18 of whom were randomly assigned to psychological intervention, 22 to antipsychotics, and 21 to antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. The trial recruitment rate was 68% of our target sample size of 90 participants. The study had a low referral to recruitment ratio (around 2:1), a high rate of retention (51 [84%] participants retained at the 6-mon...

An observational study was carried out to assess the impact of the service on the financial and environmental impacts of healthcare use. GP appointments, psychotropic medications and secondary-care referrals were measured. Findings Results demonstrate no statistical difference in the financial and carbon costs of healthcare use between groups. Social prescribing showed a trend towards reduced healthcare use, mainly due to a reduction in secondary-care referrals compared with controls. The associations found did not achieve significance due to the small sample size leading to a large degree of uncertainty regarding differences. This study demonstrates that these services are potentially able to pay for themselves through reducing future healthcare costs and are effective, low-carbon interventions, when compared with cognitive behavioral therapy or antidepressants. This is an important finding in light of Government targets for the NHS to reduce its carbon footprint by 80% by 2050. Larger studies are required to investigate the potentials of social prescribing services further.

To date there have been few peer-reviewed studies on the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of digital technologies for mental health promotion and disorder prevention. Any evaluation of these evolving technologies is complicated by a lack of understanding about the specific risks and possible benefits of the many forms of internet use on mental health. To adequately meet the mental health needs of today's society, psychiatry must engage in rigorous assessment of the impact of digital technologies.

Objective The triple bottom line (TBL) of sustainability is an important emerging conceptual framework which considers the combined economic, environmental and social impacts of an activity. Despite its clear relevance to the healthcare context, it has not yet been applied to the evaluation of a healthcare intervention. The aim of this study was to demonstrate whether doing so is feasible and useful. Design Secondary data analysis of a 12-month randomized controlled trial. Setting Community based mental health care. Participants Patients with chronic psychotic illnesses (n = 333). Intervention(s) Community treatment orders. Main Outcome Measure(s) Financial and environmental (CO2 equivalent) costs of care, obtained from healthcare service use data, were calculated using publicly available standard costs; social sustainability was assessed using standardized social outcome measures included in the trial data. Results Standardized costing and CO2e emissions figures were successfully obtained from publicly available data, and social outcomes were available directly from the trial data. Conclusions This study demonstrates that TBL assessment can be retrospectively calculated for a healthcare intervention to provide a more complete assessment of the true costs of an intervention. A basic methodology was advanced to demonstrate the feasibility of the approach, although considerable further conceptual and methodological work is needed to develop a generalizable methodology that enables prospective inclusion of a TBL assessment in healthcare evaluations. If achieved, this would represent a significant milestone in the development of more sustainable healthcare services. If increasing the sustainability of healthcare is a priority, then the TBL approach may be a promising way forward.

No abstract

Background Electronic Health Records (EHRs) can help clinicians to plan, document and deliver care for patients in healthcare services. When used consistently, EHRs can advance patient safety and quality, and reduce clinician’s workload. However, usability problems can make it difficult for clinicians to use EHRs effectively, which can negatively impact both healthcare professionals and patients. Objective To improve usability of EHRs within a mental health service in the UK. Methods This was a feasibility study conducted with two mental health teams. A mixed-methods approach was employed. Focus group discussions with clinicians identified existing usability problems in EHRs and changes were made to address these problems. Updated EHR assessment forms were evaluated by comparing the following measures pre and post changes: (1) usability testing to monitor time spent completing and duplicating patient information in EHRs, (2) clinician’s experience of using EHRs, and (3) proportion of completed EHR assessment forms. Results Usability testing with clinicians (n = 3) showed that the time taken to complete EHR assessment forms and time spent duplicating patient information decreased. Clinician’s experience of completing EHR assessment forms also significantly improved post changes compared to baseline (n = 71; p < 0.005). There was a significant increase in completion of most EHR forms by both teams after EHR usability improvements (all at p < 0.01). Conclusions Usability improvements to EHRs can reduce the time taken to complete forms, advance clinician’s experience and increase usage of EHRs. It is important to engage healthcare professionals in the usability improvement process of EHRs in mental health services.