No abstract

Aims and methodCommunity treatment orders (CTOs) have been in used in England and Wales since November 2008; however, their effectiveness has been debated widely, as has the question of which methodology is appropriate to investigate them. This paper uses national data to explore the use of CTOs in England.ResultsAbout 5500 patients are subject to CTOs at any one time. Each year, ~4500 patients are made subject to a CTO each year and ~2500 are fully discharged, usually by the responsible clinician; fewer than half of CTO patients are recalled, and two-thirds of recalls end in revocation. The low rate of CTO discharges by mental health tribunals (below 5%) suggests that they are not used inappropriately.Clinical implicationsThe introduction of CTOs in England has coincided with a reduction in psychiatric service provision due to the economic downturn. Pressures on services might be even more severe if patients currently subject to CTOs instead needed to be detained as in-patients.Declaration of interestNone.

Summary Under standard care, psychotic disorders can have limited response to treatments, high rates of chronicity and disability, negative impacts on families, and wider social and economic costs. In an effort to improve early detection and care of individuals developing a psychotic illness, early intervention in psychosis services and early detection services have been set up in various countries since the 1980s. In April 2016, NHS England implemented a new ‘access and waiting times’ standard for early intervention in psychosis to extend the prevention of psychosis across England. Unfortunately, early intervention and early detection services are still not uniformly distributed in the UK, leaving gaps in service provision. The aim of this paper is to provide a business case model that can guide clinicians and services looking to set up or expand early detection services in their area. The paper also focuses on some existing models of care within the Pan-London Network for Psychosis Prevention teams.

Catatonia can be associated with multiple physical and mental illnesses, and idiopathic catatonia is a well-recognized clinical entity. Here we report a case of recurrent idiopathic catatonia with underlying immunologic abnormalities, with an emphasis on etiological hypotheses. An 18-year-old female with mild learning disability, dyspraxia, autoimmune hypothyroidism, and nonceliac gluten intolerance was referred to mental health services after developing an episode of catatonia following tonsillitis. She had experienced 2 previous episodes suggestive of catatonia, one of which developed after a snakebite and the other after a viral infection. Samples of cerebrospinal fluid and whole blood tested positive for human herpesvirus (HHV) on DNA-polymerase chain reaction testing during her third episode, but the patient had no signs of encephalitis. She responded well to lorazepam but developed significant side effects with low-dose olanzapine and aripiprazole. She returned to her usual baseline with medical management. Very little is known about possible etiologies of recurrent idiopathic catatonia. An atypical response to an HHV infection is a likely cause of one of the episodes in this case. There is substantial evidence connecting immune dysregulation to mental illnesses. Proinflammatory effects of latent HHV, proinflammatory genetic polymorphisms related to learning disability, and autoimmune dysfunction are likely factors that may have contributed to the development of recurrent catatonia following external antigen exposure in this case. Future research should focus on immune-mediated etiologies of catatonia, the role of immunotherapy in the treatment of idiopathic catatonia, and systems research to improve multidisciplinary management of neuropsychiatric disorders.

SUMMARYViolence and aggression are relatively common and serious occurrences in health and social care and rates are higher in mental health settings. Despite the National Health Service's policy of ‘zero tolerance’ of such behaviour, reporting of violence and aggression against mental health staff remains low. This article considers the nature of violence and aggression against staff in psychiatric settings and the process of involving the police to ensure an effective outcome. It outlines each step, from the initial the multidisciplinary team assessment of the incident and its reporting to the police to the making of witness statements, should the case come to court. It also explains the discretionary role of the police in deciding whether to charge and of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in deciding whether to prosecute. The article stresses that NHS organisations need to provide an effective, streamlined and time-efficient reporting process, as this should reduce levels of patient violence, improve staff's well-being and morale, save costs and make the working environment safer for all.LEARNING OBJECTIVES•Raise awareness of the underreporting to the police of incidents of violence and aggression against staff by psychiatric patients and recognise the benefits of reporting such incidents•Develop a framework for assessment and reporting of such incidents committed to the police and to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), in the event of possible or actual criminal proceedings•Develop an understanding of the role of the healthcare organisation, the police and the CPS when such incidents are reported to the policeDECLARATION OF INTERESTNone.