Overtreatment: Is a solution possible?

Screening is a useful tool for identifying potential health issues; however, it can also lead to overtreatment. Consequently, patients are sometimes harmed by unnecessary treatments and there are cost implications. Overtreatment can also occur in other areas of medicine besides screening and sometimes medical interventions are used to improve performance rather than to treat disease. In this paper, a distinction is made between the perspectives of the patient and the government. For patients, autonomy is important, and they can refuse life-saving treatments, assuming they have decision-making capacity. They can also choose to be treated to avoid a very small risk or to improve their performance. For a government with limited funds, it is important to focus on outcomes and fund those screening programmes and other medical interventions that can potentially save the most lives or prevent severe disability. Governments also have the power to legislate to enable a level playing field by prohibiting medications that improve performance, but there is no general consensus about this, and regulations can only be applied to specific, well-defined activities. The problem with overtreatment results from the different interests involved: autonomy is the guiding idea for patients and outcome is the guiding measure for societies. A general solution will not be possible because of these inherent conflicting interests. However, medical research may improve the identification and predictions surrounding any anomalies detected during scans and reduce the problem in practice for specific conditions.

The replacement of assertive outreach services by reinforcing local community teams: a four-year observational study.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of specialist Assertive Outreach (AO) teams has produced only modest differential findings from English studies compared to standard care. Providers have gradually closed AO services over the last 8 years. We previously studied outcomes at 12 months following the dismantling of two AO teams in London. We now report on the longer term outcomes for these patients. AIMS: To evaluate the longer term outcomes, activity and costs for patients receiving a less intensive service. METHODS: Observational service level evaluation of 112 patients comparing baseline of AO care with each year of routine care subsequent to the team closure. RESULTS: Patients transferred to standard teams reinforced with the Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) approach had significantly fewer admissions and bed days at each of the four subsequent years compared to baseline, offset by a significant rise in missed face-to-face appointments. There was no significant change in the use of crisis services. Predictably patients had significantly fewer contacts under standard care. CONCLUSIONS: AO patients are remarkably resilient to substantial reductions in the intensity of care. Reinforcing multi-disciplinary community mental health teams (CMHTs) with FACT appears to provide an integrated service that is clinically effective and an affordable alternative to orthodox AO teams.

The replacement of assertive outreach services by reinforcing local community teams: a replication study reporting comparative outcomes and patient reported experience.

BACKGROUND: This is the third in a series of papers on patient outcomes and other consequences of the withdrawal of specialist assertive outreach (AO) teams. We previously reported positive outcomes for patients receiving a less intensive service at up to four years, but had not systematically interviewed patients. AIMS: To test the generalizability of earlier findings through replication in another service. To complement the analysis of service utilisation with patient reported experience between the two treatment models. METHODS: Service level evaluation 12 months pre and post service change for 55 eligible AO patients. Thirty three consenting patients answered validated questionnaires. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant changes in hospital bed use comparing the year before and the year after the change (850-712 bed days, median 34-20). No significant change in crisis activity occurred despite a highly significant reduction in face to face contacts from a mean of 90-40. There were no significant changes in patient reported experience. CONCLUSIONS: Results are consistent with earlier studies. Reinforcing community mental health teams can provide an integrated service model that is clinically effective and equally acceptable to patients, making this a viable and affordable alternative to orthodox AO teams.