Background Closure of asylums and institutions for the mentally ill, coupled with government policies focusing on reducing the number of hospital beds for people with severe mental illness in favour of providing care in a variety of non-hospital settings, underpins the rationale behind care in the community. A major thrust towards community care has been the development of community mental health teams (CMHT). Objectives To evaluate the effects of community mental health team (CMHT) treatment for anyone with serious mental illness compared with standard non-team management. Search methods We searched The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2006). We manually searched the Journal of Personality Disorders, and contacted colleagues at ENMESH, ISSPD and in forensic psychiatry. Selection criteria We included all randomised controlled trials of CMHT management versus non-team standard care. Data collection and analysis We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed effects model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a fixed effects model. Main results CMHT management did not reveal any statistically significant difference in death by suicide and in suspicious circumstances (n=587, 3 RCTs, RR 0.49 CI 0.1 to 2.2) although overall, fewer deaths occurred in the CMHT group. We found no significant differences in the number of people leaving the studies early (n=253, 2 RCTs, RR 1.10 CI 0.7 to 1.8). Significantly fewer people in the CMHT group were not satisfied with services compared with those receiving standard care (n=87, RR 0.37 CI 0.2 to 0.8, NNT 4 CI 3 to 11). Also, hospital admission rates were significantly lower in the CMHT group (n=587, 3 RCTs, RR 0.81 CI 0.7 to 1.0, NNT 17 CI 10 to 104) compared with standard care. Admittance to accident and emergency services, contact with primary care, and contact with social services did not reveal any statistical difference between comparison groups. Authors’ conclusions Community mental health team management is not inferior to non-team standard care in any important respects and is superior in promoting greater acceptance of treatment. It may also be superior in reducing hospital admission and avoiding death by suicide. The evidence for CMHT based care is insubstantial considering the massive impact the drive toward community care has on patients, carers, clinicians and the community at large.

Community mental health team management is superior to standard care in promoting greater acceptance of treatment, and may also reduce hospital admission and avoid deaths by suicide. This model of care is effective and deserves encouragement.

No abstract

BackgroundDual diagnosis of personality disorder and severe mental illness is an important clinical association that has been under-researched with regard to clinical management.AimsTo compare the outcomes of differenttreatment models.MethodThe outcome of patients with this combined diagnosis was compared in a systematic review of three randomised controlled trials in which different forms of community outreach treatment or intensive case management were compared with standard care.ResultsThe results from the three studies showed that the outcome of comorbid diagnoses was worse than that of single diagnoses. Although assertive approaches reduced in-patient care, they sometimes did so at the expense of increasing social dysfunction and behavioural disturbance.ConclusionsFor those with comorbid severe mental illness and personality disorder, the policy of assertive outreach and care in community settings may be inappropriate for both public and patients unless modified to take account of the special needs of this group.

Providing additional intensive community focused care to a group of heavy users of psychiatric in-patient services in an outer London borough does not lead to any important clinical gains or reduced costs of psychiatric care.

Background Although there have been many changes in the diagnosis of anxiety and depressive disorders in the past 20 years there have been few comparative enquiries into the clinical outcome of greater diagnostic categories. We therefore compared the outcome of all studies which compared the outcome of specific anxiety and depressive disorders using the standard procedures of systematic review.Method A Medline search was carried out of all studies comparing the outcome of anxiety and depressive disorders or mixed anxiety-depressive disorders in which information was available separately for each disorder.Results Eight studies satisfied the search criteria (all involving a period of observation of two years or greater); only one of these included randomisation of treatment and comparison between specific anxiety disorder outcome. There was a somewhat better outcome in patients with depressive disorders compared with anxiety ones, and strong evidence that both anxiety and depressive disorders singly had better outcomes than comorbid mixed disorders.Conclusion Comorbid anxiety-depressive disorders have a poor outcome compared with single anxiety and depressive disorders, and there is some evidence that anxiety disorders have a worse outcome than depressive ones.

We suggest that the diagnosis of mixed anxiety depression at syndromal level (i.e. both anxiety and depressive diagnoses present in the same person and given equal status) is valuable clinically and should be introduced into the formal classification of neurotic and mood disorders. Evidence is given from a systematic review that cothymia has a significantly worse outcome than either an anxiety or a depressive diagnosis alone (p < 0.0001). Long-term follow-up data in a 12-year outcome study of neurotic disorder reinforce this finding both with regard to social functioning and the clinical course of anxiety and depressive disorders; these were significantly worse (P < 0.001 and P < 0.02 respectively) in those with cothymia compared with single anxiety disorders. These outcome differences are much greater than those between anxiety and depressive disorders alone.:1

No abstract