Impact of secondary care financial incentives on the quality of physical healthcare for people with psychosis: a longitudinal controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have repeatedly been expressed about the quality of physical healthcare that people with psychosis receive. AIMS: To examine whether the introduction of a financial incentive for secondary care services led to improvements in the quality of physical healthcare for people with psychosis. METHOD: Longitudinal data were collected over an 8-year period on the quality of physical healthcare that people with psychosis received from 56 trusts in England before and after the introduction of the financial incentive. Control data were also collected from six health boards in Wales where a financial incentive was not introduced. We calculated the proportion of patients whose clinical records indicated that they had been screened for seven key aspects of physical health and whether they were offered interventions for problems identified during screening. RESULTS: Data from 17 947 people collected prior to (2011 and 2013) and following (2017) the introduction of the financial incentive in 2014 showed that the proportion of patients who received high-quality physical healthcare in England rose from 12.85% to 31.65% (difference 18.80, 95% CI 17.37-20.21). The proportion of patients who received high-quality physical healthcare in Wales during this period rose from 8.40% to 13.96% (difference 5.56, 95% CI 1.33-10.10). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that financial incentives for secondary care mental health services are associated with marked improvements in the quality of care that patients receive. Further research is needed to examine their impact on aspects of care that are not incentivised.

Unleashing talent in mental health sciences: gender equality at the top.

Society is undergoing a shift in gender politics. Science and medicine are part of this conversation, not least as women's representation and pay continue to drop as one progresses through more senior academic and clinical levels. Naming and redressing these inequalities needs to be a priority for us all.Declaration of interestNone.

Carrots and Sticks on Opposite Sides of the Atlantic: Integration Incentives for People With Serious Mental Illness in England.

Integrating care pathways between primary and specialist mental health care is seen as integral to improving the health of people with mental illness. Multiple integration initiatives have been implemented, but few have tried to integrate care for people with serious mental illness. This column describes two such initiatives in the United States and in England. The two schemes are compared according to the population they target, payment mechanisms, accountability structures, service delivery, outcomes, and lessons learned.

Screening for cognitive functioning in psychiatric outpatients with schizophrenia, alcohol dependence, and dual diagnosis.

Cognitive impairment is common to both schizophrenia and alcoholism. Despite increasing recognition that people with both disorders represent a problematic client group, little is known about the possible additive effect of a dual diagnosis upon impaired cognitive function. This study investigates impairment of cognitive functioning in patients with schizophrenia, alcohol dependence, or a dual diagnosis of schizophrenia and alcohol use disorder. It was hypothesised that patients with dual diagnosis would show greater cognitive impairment than those with a single diagnosis. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and standardised measures of psychiatric health and substance use were administered to 120 community psychiatric patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, alcohol dependence and both conditions (dual diagnosis). Higher rates of cognitive impairment were found among dual diagnosis patients compared to the schizophrenia or alcohol patients. This was shown in age-adjusted measures of global functioning, and on the tests of language, reading and writing, and visuospatial construction. Despite its common usage, global MMSE scores were insensitive to the cognitive impairments typically found in these clinical groups. Where the MMSE is used as a screening tool, it is recommended that scores are adjusted for the effects of age.