Psychiatric hospitalizations, arrests, emergency room visits, and homelessness of clients with serious and persistent mental illness: findings from a randomized trial of two ACT programs vs. usual care.

OBJECTIVE: This investigation examined several adverse outcomes in clients with serious mental illness in a randomized trial of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) versus usual care. METHOD: 163 subjects were randomized to one of two ACT experimental conditions (staffed by consumers or non-consumers) or usual community care. Conditions were compared on psychiatric hospitalization, emergency room visit, arrest, and homelessness, within the two-year study period. Demographic, program, and client variables were examined for significant associations with outcomes. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between ACT and usual care in time to first arrest, but not hospitalization, homelessness or ER visits. Shorter time to first hospitalization was associated with male gender, diagnoses other than schizophrenia, high psychiatric symptomatology and lower provider case load. ER visits were associated with increased client symptomatology. Shorter times to homelessness were predicted by poorer therapeutic alliance between case manager and clients. Shorter time to first arrest was predicted by client minority status and enrollment in usual care. CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of significant main effects may have been due to a prolonged "start-up" phase of the ACT programs, poor ACT implementation, restricted availability of psychiatric hospital beds, or changes in usual care services delivered over the study period.

Assertive community treatment versus usual care in engaging and retaining clients with severe mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: Two assertive community treatment teams were compared with a usual-care control condition based on their ability to engage and retain clients with serious and persistent mental illness in community-based mental health services. METHODS: Clients were randomly assigned to one of two assertive community treatment teams (N = 116) or to usual care (N = 58). Survival analysis was used to compare clients' length of engagement and retention in service in the two treatment conditions and in usual care. Cox regression analyses were conducted to determine whether demographic, program, or client variables were significantly associated with length of retention in treatment. Data on these baseline variables were collected after clients made initial contact with their community mental health provider. Clients were observed for up to 870 days. RESULTS: By the end of the observation period, the assertive community treatment teams retained 68 percent of their clients, compared with 43 percent in usual care. In both types of treatment, clients were at greatest risk of dropping out of services during the first nine months. The risk of dropout was associated with the type of treatment. Usual-care clients were more than twice as likely as assertive community treatment clients to drop out for reasons related to dissatisfaction with treatment. Each additional night homeless during the six months before enrollment in the study resulted in a 14 percent increase in the probability of dropout. CONCLUSIONS: Assertive community treatment clearly demonstrated a greater ability than usual care services to engage and retain clients in community mental health care.