Department of General Psychiatry, St George's Hospital Medical School and South West London and St George's Mental Health Trust, London
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University College London and Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust
Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health
Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry, Barts and The London School of Medicine
Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health
Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry, Barts and The London School of Medicine
Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge
Correspondence: Dr Christine Wright, Social and Community Psychiatry, Department of Mental Health, St George's Hospital Medical School, Cranmer Terrace, Tooting, London SW17 0RE, UK. E-mail: cwright{at}sghms.ac.uk
Declaration of interest Funding provided by the Department of Health.
See Parts 2 and 3, pp.
139154, this issue.
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Aims To characterise London assertive outreach teams and determine whether there are distinct groups within them.
Method Semi-structured interviews with team managers plus one month's prospective process of care data collection were used to test for model fidelity to ACT and, by cluster analysis, to identify groupings.
Results Fidelity varied widely, with four teams (out of 24 studied) rated high fidelity and three teams rated low fidelity by US standards and 17 rated ACT-like. Three clusters were identified, with voluntary sector teams being the most distinct group.
Conclusions There is wide variation in the practice of assertive outreach in London. The role of the voluntary sector requires increased attention. Heterogeneity in practice is a clinical challenge but a research opportunity in distinguishing effective from redundant components of the approach.
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
METHOD |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
All existing teams in London that designated themselves as assertive outreach, assertive community treatment or intensive case management were screened to see whether they met the basic inclusion criteria, which included: having a patient: staff ratio of 15: 1 or less; having staff from more than one mental health profession; and providing long-term care, mainly in the community, for people with severe and enduring mental illness. Teams with assertive outreach posts integrated into community mental health teams or with a specialised clinical focus (e.g. homeless individuals, forensic patients, etc.) were excluded. All 24 teams meeting the criteria agreed to take part in the study, and data were collected during the summer of 2001.
Research assistants interviewed the leaders/managers of these teams using a semi-structured interview containing the following instruments:
The five researchers, who already knew the teams well through regular contact, received training in the questionnaires and had their initial interviews supervised (P.J.). Scoring was supplemented with additional information from the team, such as operational policies and case-load data. Following data collection, researchers met with two of the investigators (P.J. and C.W.) to check the data collected on all teams. This enabled anomalies to be resolved and ensured that scoring was conducted consistently.
Patient and carer contact recording
Recording of all contacts by teams with both patients and carers was
undertaken during March 2002. This used a contact recording system already
developed by Ford et al
(1993) and further adapted for
use in the UK700 study (Burns et
al, 2000), after some simplification and re-piloting.
Individual workers, using booklets for each of the 4 weeks, recorded data on
duration, site and primary purpose of each contact (telephone as well as face
to face). The research assistants remained in regular contact with the teams
during the month. Reliability checks on the contact recording were carried out
by comparing the contact recording data with case note contact data collected
in two censuses.
The patient and carer contact recording data were used in descriptive analysis of the provision of team contact with patients and also as a variable (proportion of patient contact in vivo) in the team typology analysis.
![]() |
Analysis |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
For the cluster analysis, 14 variables were judged to be key to the classification and were used to characterise the 24 assertive outreach teams. These variables were determined by the research team as a result of literature searching: a previous systematic review of home treatment studies carried out by the same research group, which included a Delphi exercise on experts' views (Burns et al, 2001), and preliminary experiential information gained by the research assistants about the London assertive outreach teams. These 14 variables are listed in Table 2. Where possible continuous variables were used, although some of necessity remained binary. Because the variables were on different scales, it was necessary to re-scale them to give equal weight. This was done by replacing each variable with its rank among the teams. Ties were dealt with by assigning average ranks.
|
Hierarchical methods of cluster analysis were then used with an L1 (City Block) dissimilarity measure applied to the ranks (Everitt et al, 2001). The L2 (Euclidean) measure was used as a sensitivity analysis, as were complete- and single-linkage methods (average linkage having been used in the main analysis). Individual team and individual variable omission were used in the sensitivity analysis to determine whether individual items were highly significant to the classification results. The number of clusters was determined by viewing the dendrogram in order to identify well-separated groups.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Staff composition
Team size varied considerably, both in total case-load and in total staff
full-time equivalents (FTEs). Two teams (8.3%) had fewer than six FTE staff
and nine teams (52.9%) had a full-time/part-time staff ratio of 2 or less
(i.e. a high proportion of part-time staff). All teams were
multi-disciplinary. Nursing was the predominant profession, with a mean of 5.6
total FTE per 100 patients, followed by support workers (4.6 FTE per 100).
Seven teams (29.2%) had no unqualified staff. All teams except one had some
social worker input but with a range per 100 patients of between 1 FTE or less
in one team (4.2%) to 57 FTEs in four teams (16.7%). Ten teams (42%)
had no input from a psychiatrist and six teams (25%) had less than 1 FTE per
100 patients. A further six teams (25%) had between 1 and 2 FTEs and two teams
(8.4%) had between 2 and 3 FTEs. Clinical psychologists were only present in a
minority of ten teams.
Integration of health and social care
Of the 17 statutory teams, eight (47.1%) had no integration of health and
social care. Sixteen statutory teams (94%) had a social worker co-located and
managed within the assertive outreach team as a care coordinator.
In-patient responsibility
Only five teams (20.8%) had designated in-patient beds for their patients,
with a mean number of beds per team of 9.8 (s.d.=4.9, range 518). Six
teams (25%) retained full medical responsibility for all their patients during
periods of admission to hospital, one team retained responsibility for some
patients and the other 17 teams (71%) handed over medical responsibility.
Case-loads and referrals
Individual case-loads varied considerably, with a mean average of 9.4
(s.d.=2.1, range 514) per FTE. All assertive outreach teams accepted
patients referred from community mental health teams or other specialist
mental health services, but acceptance from other agencies was more limited.
Nine teams (37.5%) accepted from other health agencies, seven (29.2%) from
each of primary care, social care agencies and voluntary agencies, five
(20.8%) from self-referral and three (12.5%) from other sources.
Criteria for acceptance of patients onto the team case-load included the age of the patient (21 teams, 87.5%), previous difficulty in engagement (20 teams, 83.3%), specific diagnoses (19 teams, 79.2%), previous hospitalisations (15 teams, 62.5%) and minimum duration of illness (13 teams, 54.2%); 22 teams (91.7%) reported other acceptance criteria, such as geographical catchment area and being in contact with other mental health services.
Patient and carer contact recording
Contact timing and frequency
The total number of contacts (both successfully achieved and failed
contacts) by staff in assertive outreach teams with their patients during the
1-month recording period was 7012. The mean number of contacts received by an
assertive outreach patient per week ranged from 0.3 to 2.3. Considering only
successful contacts, the median duration for these contacts for all teams was
30 min, with a range of 1570 min and the majority between 1 and 15 min.
Most contacts (81.5%) were within office hours (MondayFriday,
08.0018.00 h); only 9.3% were recorded as out of
hours.
Nature of contacts
Of the assertive outreach team contacts, 67.7% were face to face with the
patient, 13.1% were by telephone, 11.1% of all attempts at contact ended in
failure and a further 6.1% involved contact with the carer (face to face or by
phone). Of the face to face contacts with patients, 63% took place in the
patient's home or neighbourhood (so called in vivo),
27.4% in service settings and 9.7% in other settings.
Team staff also recorded the primary focus of their contact with the patient. The most common of the ten focus categories was engagement (21.3%), followed by medication (17.1%) and specific mental health assessment or intervention (15.1%). All other primary focus topics were present with less than 10% frequency: housing (7.5%), occupation and leisure (7.6%), daily living skills (7.0%), finance (5.1%), carers/significant others (2.9%), physical health (2%) and criminal justice system (1.0%).
Cluster analysis results
Table 2 lists the variables
used in the cluster analysis, their distribution and (where appropriate) their
means and ranges, for both the total sample and for the three clusters
identified from the dendrogram illustrated in
Fig. 1.
|
Cluster C, the most distinct cluster identified by the analysis, consists entirely of voluntary agency teams that do not hold formal clinical responsibility (e.g. the Care Programme Approach, CPA). Inevitably, they lack integrated health and social care provision and dedicated beds. These teams have no input from a psychiatrist, fewer disciplines represented (mean=2.7) and tend to be smaller (mean=6.2 FTE staff, range 59). However, they provide the highest percentage of in vivo contacts to patients (45%). They have very little service provision outside of weekday office hours, with only one team offering some weekend service.
Clusters A and B comprise teams with CPA responsibility, although cluster B includes one voluntary agency team. All but one of the teams provide integrated health and social care. Clusters A and B differ in several regards. Cluster B teams have no psychiatrist input and no dedicated in-patient beds, whereas cluster A teams had a mean of 1.0 FTE psychiatrist per 100 patients and 36% had dedicated in-patient beds. Cluster A teams also tended to be more multi-disciplinary (mean of four per team v. three in cluster B) and to have more part-time staff (full-time: part-time ratio of 2.0 v. 5.8). They also tended to have smaller individual case-loads (mean of 8.7 v. 10.4) and to operate more outside of office hours (57% of teams v. 25%).
The frequency of patient contacts also varied by cluster. The overall figure for all teams is approximately 1.3 (s.d.=0.5) contacts per week. However, this varied with 1.36 contacts per week for cluster A teams, 1.45 for cluster B teams and 0.97 for cluster C teams. Thus, the voluntary sector teams of cluster 3 showed a tendency to have fewer contacts per week but with a higher proportion of contacts taking place in the patient's home or community setting.
Sensitivity analyses
Use of the L2 metric clearly identified clusters A, B and C
(Fig. 1). Scaling by the
standard deviation and the range also clearly identified cluster C but failed
to identify cluster B. This is probably because the distinctive
characteristics of cluster B are described by skewed continuous variables that
have less influence with these approaches. Omitting the percentage of
patient contacts in vivo variable did not detract from the
clear identification of clusters A, B and C. Taken together, these analyses
support the definition of three main clusters.
To see whether any individual teams were highly influential, we omitted one team at a time and examined the impact on the classification of the remaining teams. Of these 24 analyses, 20 identified cluster C as most distinct, followed by clusters A and B. One analysis identified cluster A as most distinct, followed by clusters B and C. The remaining analyses separated cluster A from cluster C but did not identify cluster B.
Correlation with independent scales
The Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Scale
The mean DACTS score for all teams was 3.4 (s.d.=0.4), with a range of
2.34.1. Three teams (12.5%) scored a mean of 4 or more (usually taken
as high fidelity), seventeen teams (71%) scored means of
33.9 and four teams (16.5%) scored means of 22.9 (low
fidelity).
The 28 individual items in the DACTS were ranked according to their mean score. Nine items had a mean score of 45 (high fidelity), eleven items had a mean score of 33.9 and eight items had scores of less than 2.9 (low fidelity). Of these, four had a mean score of 22.9 and four had a mean score of 11.9. Table 3 lists those variables where London teams showed high and low fidelity.
|
Figure 2 shows the mean DACTS score for all teams and for clusters A, B and C. It also presents the DACTS mean scores by its three dimensions: human resources, organisational boundaries and nature of services.
|
Teams in cluster A tended to show higher fidelity in all three dimensions, although this was less marked in the nature of services dimension. In the human resources dimension, cluster C's fidelity score was reduced by their employing support workers without mental health qualifications. However, they also scored lower on other items in this dimension that were not staff-dependent: degree to which a team approach is used, how often a team meets to review all patients and how clinically active the team leader is. Within organisation boundaries, two of the seven items differentiated cluster C teams from A and B. Not surprisingly, given their voluntary agency status, these were their lack of involvement in the hospital admission and discharge of their patients.
The nature of services dimension did not clearly differentiate between the three clusters.
The International Classification of Mental Health Care
Each of ten modules of care are scored high (3), medium (2) or low (1) on
the level of specialisation provided by the team. It is also possible to rate
the service as not applicable to the module of care (0).
Figure 3 shows the mean ICHMC
scores for each module of care, both for all teams and by cluster.
|
All teams scored 3 for module 1, establishing and maintaining relationships. Teams scored highly on modules 2 (assessment) and 3 (care coordination), with means of 2.4 and 2.5, respectively. Overall mean scores for other modules were lower and mostly in the range 1.52. Cluster C teams consistently scored lower than cluster A and B teams in all modules other than module 1.
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The cluster C teams differed in other ways also, often having a specific target group or holding to a particular ideology of care: two teams have a particular focus on AfricanCaribbean patients; one team focuses on young people (less than 25 years old); and another team targets asylum seekers and recent immigrants. Several spoke of working to a social inclusion model and of holding a true team approach. In two teams all staff are employed as mental health workers or support workers rather than by their professional backgrounds, and in one team all staff received the same salary. Voluntary agency staff were also more likely to be reported as living in the area served. One team spoke of having a pre-engagement role, with a view to later engagement of their clients in the local statutory services.
Voluntary agency teams may not play such a strong role in assertive outreach provision outside London but their role within London is clearly significant. There would appear to be a need for more consideration of the place of the non-statutory sector teams within the local health economies and service provision. Their role in implementing the statutory responsibility of the CPA a set of principles for organising mental health care in the UK that is required in law is already developing. One team already holds CPA responsibility and agreement is in place for a further team to take this on in the near future. Only one voluntary agency team reported poor relationships with local statutory services.
Integrated health and social care provision and hospitalisation
An integrated health and social care service was one of only two components
demonstrated to be associated with reduced hospitalisation in a systematic
review of home treatment services (Burns
et al, 2001). In our sample only half of the statutory
teams fulfilled this integrated provision, although it was clear that this was
changing rapidly: 79.2% of teams (19) had no designated in-patient beds and
only 29% (7) retained any medical responsibility for their admitted patients.
There is a fault-line in patients' care at the point of hospital admission.
Receiving teams may not fully understand or accept assertive outreach
approaches, and thereby fail to achieve the earlier discharge that has been
identified as one of its strengths. This has implications for expectations of
the effectiveness of assertive outreach teams in reducing the length of
hospital stay. Continuity of responsibility of medical care across community
and in-patient provision by assertive outreach services requires careful
consideration.
Contact with patients
Several of the assertive outreach teams within the study were already
employing some form of patient and carer contact recording, either as part of
a wider patient information database or for the purposes of clinical audit.
Although issues of quality and comparability made it impossible to use these
in this study, this is an encouraging development. These do not, as yet,
record the provision of specific, defined interventions, and it is highly
likely that it is such interventions (rather than patterns of contacts) that
affect outcomes (Burns et al,
1999).
The Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Scale
The mean score on the DACTS for all teams was 3.41, which would indicate
moderate fidelity. Compared with the US teams investigated by Teague et
al (1998) this is close
to the ACT-like teams (mean=3.47) but lower than the ACT
replication teams (mean=4.01).
More striking, however, is the great variation in the London teams' DACTS mean scores. Most teams (71%) reflected a moderate level of fidelity, with three teams scoring above 4. However, with the highest at 4.14, this indicates that even these teams were not implementing some of the features of the model. Four of the teams scored a mean of below 3, suggesting that there were many items of the DACTS that were not being adhered to. Cluster A teams have the highest fidelity scores. When ranked by the DACTS mean score, ten of the top eleven teams were from cluster A. Conversely, four of the six cluster C teams had the lowest DACTS means (the other two cluster C teams being ranked sixteenth and seventeenth).
The DACTS is a multi-dimensional measure and mean scores have limited value. Nine individual DACTS criteria scored a mean of 4 or above, spread across the three dimensions of DACTS, indicating that most London assertive outreach teams are doing well at implementing these elements of ACT. Some of these were expected, given our team inclusion criteria, such as having small individual case-loads and time-unlimited services. Others included providing a high proportion of service in vivo and the team having full responsibility for treatment services (such as housing and employment support). However, eight DACTS items scored a mean of less than 3, suggesting that London assertive outreach teams differ significantly from their US counterparts in score. Of these eight, three related to expertise and service provision in substance misuse care and a further two to the low level of senior psychiatrist and vocational specialist input to the teams. The frequency of contact with patients, the role of users on team and having responsibility for 24-h crises also showed poor fidelity within DACTS.
Exporting health care structures from one national system to another is likely to reveal differences. Examples of this are: the presence of staff in the team who have at least one year of training or experience in substance misuse or vocational specialities; and the details of what integrated health and social care means. An understanding of how the teams fit into their own national system of health care is essential for interpreting their fidelity scores.
In addition, we found that the DACTS omits team characteristics that we considered important, both from the literature and from clinical experience for assessing care within a non-US context. Only 6 out of 14 variables that were considered in the cluster analysis are reflected in the DACTS. We believe that the DACTS is a more culture-bound instrument than has been acknowledged previously and we would recommend that in a non-US context the other eight items used in this cluster analysis be included.
The DACTS overall mean score tells us little about the profile of the service characteristics of teams. It is quite possible for two teams to score equally on the overall DACTS while incorporating substantially different components of care. More work needs to be done to establish the relative importance of different components of care within the assertive outreach model.
Implications for future assertive outreach services in the UK
The role of assertive outreach teams in mental health services in the UK is
developing rapidly, with policy support in the National Service Framework for
Mental Health (Department of Health,
1999) and the Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide
(Department of Health, 2001).
Our study suggests that currently the term assertive outreach
team is not indicative in London of a single implementation model, nor
necessarily of teams including the characteristics required by Department of
Health guidance. Recruiting clinical psychologists was reported as
particularly difficult and few teams had achieved it. Similarly, there were
some teams with a high proportion of part-time staff, which was seen as
unsatisfactory. It is also clear that some of the accepted wisdom of the US
ACT model and the means of assessing its implementation through the DACTS do
not easily translate to the UK system of care. Assertive community treatment
is being adopted as policy in a number of countries outside the USA. We would
propose that their likely heterogeneity presents a clinical challenge but also
a research opportunity in distinguishing effective from redundant components
of the prescribed model.
![]() |
APPENDIX |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
Clinical Implications and Limitations |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
LIMITATIONS
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Burns, T., Fiander, M., Kent, A., et al
(2000) Effects of case-load size on the process of care of
patients with severe psychotic illness. Report from the UK700 trial.
British Journal of Psychiatry,
177,
427433.
Burns, T., Knapp, M., Catty, J., et al (2001) Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 5, no. 15. http://www.hta.nhsweb.nhs.uk/fullmono/mon515.pdf
de Jong, A. (1996) International Classification of Mental Health Care. Groningen: Department of Social Psychiatry, University of Groningen and the World Health Organization.
Department of Health (1999) The National Service Framework for Mental Health. London: Department of Health.
Department of Health (2001) The Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide. London: Department of Health.
Everitt, B., Landau, S., Leese, M., et al (eds) (2001) Cluster Analysis (4th edn). London: Edward Arnold.
Ford, R., Repper, J., Cooke, A., et al (1993) Research Report on the Process of Developing Case Management Services for People with a Long-term Mental Illness. London: Research and Development for Psychiatry.
Johnson, S., Zinkler, M. & Priebe, S. (2001) Mental health service provision in England. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 104 (suppl. 410), 4755.[CrossRef]
Marshall, M., Bond, G., Stein, L. I., et al (1999) PRiSM Psychosis Study: design limitations, questionable conclusions. British Journal of Psychiatry, 175, 501503.[Medline]
Stein, L. I. & Test, M. A. (1980) Alternative to mental health treatment: conceptual model, treatment program and clinical evaluation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 37, 392397.[Abstract]
Teague, G. B., Bond, G. R. & Drake, R. E. (1998) Program fidelity in assertive community treatment: development and use of a measure. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 216232.[Medline]
Thornicroft, G.,Wykes, T., Holloway, F., et al (1998) From efficacy to effectiveness in community mental health services. PRiSM Pschosis Study 10. British Journal of Psychiatry, 173, 423427.[Abstract]
Received for publication December 6, 2002. Revision received March 12, 2003. Accepted for publication April 22, 2003.
Related articles in BJP: