ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Healthcare systems around the world are looking for solutions to the growing problem of mental disorders. RECOVER is the synonym for an evidence-based, stepped and cross-sectoral coordinated care service model for mental disorders. RECOVER implements a cross-sectoral network with managed care, comprehensive psychological, somatic and social diagnostics, crisis resolution and a general structure of four severity levels, each with assigned evidence-based therapy models (eg, assertive community treatment) and therapies (eg, psychotherapy). The study rationale is the investigation of the effectiveness and efficiency of stepped and integrated care in comparison to standard care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial is conducted in accordance to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials Statement. The study aims to compare the RECOVER model with treatment as usual (TAU). The following questions are examined: Does RECOVER reduce healthcare costs compared with TAU? Does RECOVER improve patient-relevant outcomes? Is RECOVER cost-effective compared with TAU? A total sample of 890 patients with mental disorders will be assessed at baseline and individually randomised into RECOVER or TAU. Follow-up assessments are conducted after 6 and 12 months. As primary outcomes, cost reduction, improvement in symptoms, daily functioning and quality of life as well as cost-effectiveness ratios will be measured. In addition, several secondary outcomes will be assessed. Primary and secondary outcomes are evaluated according to the intention-to-treat principle. Mixed linear or logistic regression models are used with the direct maximum likelihood estimation procedure which results in unbiassed estimators under the missing-at-random assumption. Costs due to healthcare utilisation and productivity losses are evaluated using difference-in-difference regressions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval from the ethics committee of the Hamburg Medical Association has been obtained (PV5672). The results will be disseminated to service users and their families via the media, to healthcare professionals via professional training and meetings and to researchers via conferences and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND REGISTRY NAME: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03459664), RECOVER PROTOCOL VERSION: 19 March 2020 (V.3.0).
Subject(s)
Mental Disorders , Mental Health Services , Humans , Mental Disorders/therapy , Psychotherapy , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Research DesignABSTRACT
Schizophrenia is a complex mental disorder. Hence, the mental health system faces enormous structural, therapeutic, and health-economic challenges. Innovative models of healthcare can facilitate making treatment more efficient and effective.This paper aims to give an overview of evidence-based and innovative models of care and treatment for schizophrenia and severe mental illnesses. For this purpose, we performed a literature search covering the last 10 years of publications regarding "care or treatment models" and "schizophrenia," "psychosis," or "severe mental illness."Many publications do not provide details about the tested care model. Innovative care models for schizophrenia comprise early psychosis services (EPSs) or models for severe mental illnesses (SMI) integrating, combining and/or developing the treatment models crisis resolution team (CRT), assertive community treatment (ACT), and/or (intensive) case management (ICM). For illustration, the innovative models Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) in Australia, the Flexible Assertive Community Treatment model in the Netherlands, and the Therapeutic Assertive Community Treatment model in Hamburg are explained. All three models regularly offer integrated, specialized, and assertive care.In Germany, innovative models of care have not been implemented sufficiently: neither EPS nor ACT are part of standard care; CRT can now be funded by health insurances via "ward-equivalent treatment" as defined by a new German law (§§ 39 und 115d SGB V). Regarding the implementation of CRT and ACT in Germany, a clinical study evaluating the RECOVER model is underway. This is a stepped-care, trans-sectorally coordinated and evidence-based treatment model, the evaluation of which is supported by the innovation fund of the Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss, GBA) from 2017 to 2020.
Subject(s)
Community Mental Health Services , Schizophrenia/therapy , Germany , Humans , Psychotic DisordersABSTRACT
The ACCESS-model offers integrated care including assertive community treatment to patients with psychotic disorders. ACCESS proved more effective compared to standard care (ACCESS-I study) and was successfully implemented into clinical routine (ACCESS-II study). In this article, we report the 4-year outcomes of the ACCESS-II study. Between May 2007 and December 2013, 115 patients received continuous ACCESS-care. We hypothesized that the low 2-year disengagement and hospitalization rates and significant improvements in psychopathology, functioning, and quality of life could be sustained over 4 years. Over 4 years, only 10 patients disengaged from ACCESS. Another 23 left for practical reasons and were successfully transferred to other services. Hospitalization rates remained low (13.0% in year 3; 9.1% in year 4). Involuntary admissions decreased from 35% in the 2 years prior to ACCESS to 8% over 4 years in ACCESS. Outpatient contacts remained stably high at 2.0-2.4 per week. We detected significant improvements in psychopathology (effect size d = 0.79), illness severity (d = 1.29), level of functioning (d = 0.77), quality of life (d = 0.47) and stably high client satisfaction (d = 0.02) over 4 years. Most positive effects were observed within the first 2 years with the exception of illness severity, which further improved from year 2 to 4. Within continuous intensive 4-year ACCESS-care, sustained improvements in psychopathology, functioning, quality of life, low service disengagement and re-hospitalization rates, as well as low rates of involuntary treatment, were observed in contrast to other studies, which reported a decline in these parameters once a specific treatment model was stopped. Yet, stronger evidence to prove these results is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT01888627.
Subject(s)
Bipolar Disorder/therapy , Community Mental Health Services , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated , Psychotic Disorders/therapy , Schizophrenia/therapy , Adult , Ambulatory Care/methods , Community Mental Health Services/methods , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/methods , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hospitalization , Humans , Involuntary Treatment , Male , Patient Dropouts , Patient Satisfaction , Quality of Life , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Marfan syndrome (MFS) is a rare, severe, chronic, life-threatening disease with multiorgan involvement that requires optimal multidisciplinary care to normalize both prognosis and quality of life. In this article, each key team member of all the medical disciplines of a multidisciplinary health care team at the Hamburg Marfan center gives a personal account of his or her contribution in the management of patients with MFS. The authors show how, with the support of health care managers, key team members organize themselves in an organizational structure to create a common meaning, to maximize therapeutic success for patients with MFS. First, we show how the initiative and collaboration of patient representatives, scientists, and physicians resulted in the foundation of Marfan centers, initially in the US and later in Germany, and how and why such centers evolved over time. Then, we elucidate the three main structural elements; a team of coordinators, core disciplines, and auxiliary disciplines of health care. Moreover, we explain how a multidisciplinary health care team integrates into many other health care structures of a university medical center, including external quality assurance; quality management system; clinical risk management; center for rare diseases; aorta center; health care teams for pregnancy, for neonates, and for rehabilitation; and in structures for patient centeredness. We provide accounts of medical goals and standards for each core discipline, including pediatricians, pediatric cardiologists, cardiologists, human geneticists, heart surgeons, vascular surgeons, vascular interventionists, orthopedic surgeons, ophthalmologists, and nurses; and of auxiliary disciplines including forensic pathologists, radiologists, rhythmologists, pulmonologists, sleep specialists, orthodontists, dentists, neurologists, obstetric surgeons, psychiatrist/psychologist, and rehabilitation specialists. We conclude that a multidisciplinary health care team is a means to maximize therapeutic success.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The ACCESS treatment model offers assertive community treatment embedded in an integrated care program to patients with psychoses. Compared to standard care and within a controlled study, it proved to be more effective in terms of service disengagement and illness outcomes in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders over 12 months. ACCESS was implemented into clinical routine and its effectiveness assessed over 24 months in severe schizophrenia spectrum disorders and bipolar I disorder with psychotic features (DSM-IV) in a cohort study. METHOD: All 115 patients treated in ACCESS (from May 2007 to October 2009) were included in the ACCESS II study. The primary outcome was rate of service disengagement. Secondary outcomes were change of psychopathology, severity of illness, psychosocial functioning, quality of life, satisfaction with care, medication nonadherence, length of hospital stay, and rates of involuntary hospitalization. RESULTS: Only 4 patients (3.4%) disengaged with the service. Another 11 (9.6%) left because they moved outside the catchment area. Patients received a mean of 1.6 outpatient contacts per week. Involuntary admissions decreased from 34.8% in the 2 previous years to 7.8% during ACCESS (P < .001). Mixed models repeated-measures analyses revealed significant improvements among all patients in psychopathology (effect size d = 0.64, P < .001), illness severity (d = 0.84, P = .03), functioning level (d = 0.65, P < .001), quality of life (d = 0.50, P < .001), and client satisfaction (d = 0.11, P < .001). At 24 months, 78.3% were fully adherent to medication, compared to 25.2% at baseline (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: ACCESS was successfully implemented in clinical routine and maintained excellent rates of service engagement and other outcomes in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders or bipolar I disorder with psychotic features over 24 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01888627.
Subject(s)
Bipolar Disorder/therapy , Community Mental Health Services , Schizophrenia/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Patient Satisfaction , Quality of Life , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The "Hamburg model" designates an integrated care model for severely ill patients with psychotic disorders financed by the health insurance system in accordance with § 140 SGB V. METHODS: It comprises comprehensive and long-term treatment within a regional network of the psychosis center of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) and private psychiatrists. The treatment model consists of therapeutic assertive community treatment (ACT) provided by a highly specialized treatment team and need-adapted in- and outpatient care. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The present article summarizes the disease- and treatment-specific rationales for the model development as well as the model structure and treatment contents. The article further summarizes the effectiveness and efficiency results of a study comparing the Hamburg model and treatment as usual (without ACT) within a 12-month follow-up study (ACCESS trial).
Subject(s)
Community Mental Health Services , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated , Models, Psychological , National Health Programs , Psychotic Disorders/therapy , Adult , Ambulatory Care , Bipolar Disorder/diagnosis , Bipolar Disorder/psychology , Bipolar Disorder/therapy , Combined Modality Therapy , Commitment of Mentally Ill , Cooperative Behavior , Day Care, Medical , Evidence-Based Medicine , Germany , Humans , Interdisciplinary Communication , Long-Term Care , Patient Admission , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales , Psychotic Disorders/diagnosis , Psychotic Disorders/psychology , Schizophrenia/diagnosis , Schizophrenia/therapy , Schizophrenic PsychologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Since the beginning of the integrated care model for severely ill patients with psychotic disorders ("Hamburg model") in 2007 different clinical parameters have been consecutively assessed within a naturalistic, observational, prospective study. METHODS: Clinical outcome of the 2-year and 4-year follow-ups of n = 158 patients. RESULTS: A significant and ongoing improvement of psychopathology, severity of illness, functional outcome, quality of life and satisfaction with care in this sample of severely ill and merely chronic patients with psychosis was shown. Moreover, medication adherence improved and quality and quantity of outpatient treatment increased. CONCLUSION: The ongoing psychosocial stabilisation of the patients most likely result from a combination of various factors: continuity of care, multimodal and individualized care, therapeutic specialisation and the multidisciplinary ACT team. RESULTS provide clinical and scientific evidence for future implementations of the integrated care model "Hamburg Model" for the treatment of psychosis.
Subject(s)
Community Mental Health Services , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated , Models, Psychological , National Health Programs , Psychotic Disorders/therapy , Adult , Ambulatory Care , Bipolar Disorder/diagnosis , Bipolar Disorder/psychology , Bipolar Disorder/therapy , Commitment of Mentally Ill , Day Care, Medical , Depressive Disorder, Major/diagnosis , Depressive Disorder, Major/psychology , Depressive Disorder, Major/therapy , Evidence-Based Medicine , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Germany , Humans , Interdisciplinary Communication , Long-Term Care , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Admission , Psychotic Disorders/diagnosis , Psychotic Disorders/psychology , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Schizophrenia/diagnosis , Schizophrenia/therapy , Schizophrenic PsychologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the 1-year cost-effectiveness of therapeutic assertive community treatment (ACT) with standard care in schizophrenia. ACT was specifically developed for patients with schizophrenia, delivered by psychosis experts highly trained in respective psychotherapies, and embedded into an integrated care system. METHOD: Two catchment areas in Hamburg, Germany, with similar population size and health care structures were assigned to offer 12-month ACT (n = 64) or standard care (n = 56) to 120 first- and multiple-episode patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (DSM-IV), the latter with a history of relapse due to medication nonadherence. Primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) based on mental health care costs from a payer perspective and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as a measure of health effects during the 12-month follow-up period (2006-2007). RESULTS: ACT was associated with significantly lower inpatient but higher outpatient costs than standard care, resulting in nonsignificantly lower total costs (P = .27). Incremental QALYs in the ACT group were 0.1 (P < .001). Thus, the point estimate for the ICER showed dominance of ACT. The probability of an ICER below 50,000 per QALY gained was 99.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a psychotherapeutically oriented schizophrenia-specific and -experienced ACT team led to an improved patient outcome with reduced need of inpatient care. Despite the introduction of such a rather "costly" ACT team, treatment in ACT was cost-effective with regard to improved quality of life at comparable yearly costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01081418.
Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents/economics , Combined Modality Therapy/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis/statistics & numerical data , Dibenzothiazepines/economics , Psychotherapy/economics , Schizophrenia/economics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antipsychotic Agents/administration & dosage , Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Combined Modality Therapy/methods , Combined Modality Therapy/statistics & numerical data , Dibenzothiazepines/administration & dosage , Dibenzothiazepines/therapeutic use , Female , Germany , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Psychotherapy/methods , Quetiapine Fumarate , Schizophrenia/drug therapy , Schizophrenia/therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Marfan syndrome is a typical rare disease with multiorgan involvement and the need for specialized interdisciplinary medical care. A novel German legal directive according to section sign 116 b of the Social Statutes Book V (116 b SGB V) improves options for reimbursement and thus encourages specialized hospitals to provide ambulatory care for rare diseases such as Marfan syndrome. The authors provide the first economic analysis of section sign 116 b in a German Marfan center. METHODS: The costs were assessed in 184 cases with Marfan syndrome receiving medical care in the Hamburg Marfan Clinic. The authors assessed the financial profit both according to payments received from invoices established according to the 116 b directive [reimbursement (116b)] and from calculations according to section sign 117 SGB V [reimbursement (117)]. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients traveled to the Marfan clinic (64%) < 50 km, 27 patients (15%) between >or= 50 and
Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/economics , Ambulatory Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Care Costs/legislation & jurisprudence , Marfan Syndrome/economics , Marfan Syndrome/therapy , National Health Programs/economics , National Health Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Rare Diseases , Reimbursement Mechanisms/economics , Reimbursement Mechanisms/legislation & jurisprudence , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Child, Preschool , Cooperative Behavior , Costs and Cost Analysis , Female , Germany , Health Expenditures/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Accessibility/economics , Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence , Hospitals, Special/economics , Hospitals, Special/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Infant , Interdisciplinary Communication , Male , Middle Aged , Outpatient Clinics, Hospital/economics , Outpatient Clinics, Hospital/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Care Team/economics , Patient Care Team/legislation & jurisprudence , Referral and Consultation , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The ACCESS trial examined the 12-month effectiveness of continuous therapeutic assertive community treatment (ACT) as part of integrated care compared to standard care in a catchment area comparison design in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders treated with quetiapine immediate release. METHOD: Two catchment areas in Hamburg, Germany, with similar population size and health care structures were assigned to offer 12-month ACT as part of integrated care (n = 64) or standard care (n = 56) to 120 patients with first- or multiple-episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders criteria); multiple-episode patients were restricted to those with a history of relapse due to medication nonadherence. The primary outcome was time to service disengagement. Secondary outcomes comprised medication nonadherence, improvements of symptoms, functioning, quality of life, satisfaction with care from patients' and relatives' perspectives, and service use data. The study was conducted from April 2005 to December 2008. RESULTS: 17 of 120 patients (14.2%) disengaged with service, 4 patients (6.3%) in the ACT and 13 patients (23.2%) in the standard care group. The mean Kaplan-Meier estimated time in service was 50.7 weeks in the ACT group (95% CI, 49.1-52.0) and 44.1 weeks in the standard care group (95% CI, 40.1-48.1). This difference was statistically significant (P = .0035). Mixed models repeated measures indicated larger improvements for ACT compared to standard care regarding symptoms (P < . 01), illness severity (P < . 001), global functioning (P < . 05), quality of life (P < . 05), and client satisfaction as perceived by patients and family (both P < . 05). Logistic regression analyses revealed that ACT was associated with a higher likelihood of being employed/occupied (P = .001), of living independently (P = .007), and of being adherent with medication (P < . 001) and a lower likelihood of persistent substance misuse (P = .027). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to standard care, intensive therapeutic ACT as part of integrated care could improve 1-year outcome. Future studies need to address in which settings these improvements can be sustained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01081418.
