BackgroundSubstantial ethnic variations have been found in incidence, pathways to care and outcomes in psychosis. It is unknown whether these remain as marked in the presence of specialist Early Intervention Services (EIS) for psychosis. We present the first UK study exploring ethnic differences in compulsory detention and hospitalization rates for EIS patients. We investigated whether the excess rates of compulsory admission for people from Black groups have persisted following nationwide introduction of EIS. We also explored variations in compulsory admission for other ethnic groups, and differences by gender and diagnosis.MethodsFour inner-city London EIS teams gathered data from first-presentation psychosis patients between 2004–2009 using the MiData audit tool. Clinical, sociodemographic and pathways to care data were recorded regarding adult patients from eight different ethnic groups at entry to EIS and one year later.ResultsBlack African EIS service users had odds of being detained and of being hospitalised three times greater than White British patients, even after adjustment for confounders. This was most marked in Black African women (seven to eight times greater odds than White British women). A post-hoc analysis showed that pathways to care and help-seeking behaviour partially explained these differences.ConclusionThese findings suggest EIS input in its current form has little impact on higher admission and detention rates in certain Black and minority groups. There is a need to tackle these differences and engage patients earlier, focusing on the needs of men and women from the most persistently affected groups.

This study confirms that a significant proportion of FEP patients are able to engage in meaningful vocational activities even within the first year of EIS care. However, services need to focus more resources on getting patients with poor educational or employment histories into training programmes to improve their vocational outcomes.

Gender differences in clinical outcome, service use and risk behaviours were apparent within the first year of specialist psychosis care. This may be partly due to the different pathways to care taken by men and women and differences in clinical presentation. Greater focus on the specific needs of each gender by EIS in detection and intervention is required to improve equality of outcome.