Clinician treatment choices for post-traumatic stress disorder: ambassadors survey of psychiatrists in 39 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Considering the recently growing number of potentially traumatic events in Europe, the European Psychiatric Association undertook a study to investigate clinicians' treatment choices for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHODS: The case-based analysis included 611 participants, who correctly classified the vignette as a case of PTSD, from Central/ Eastern Europe (CEE) (n = 279), Southern Europe (SE) (n = 92), Northern Europe (NE) (n = 92), and Western Europe (WE) (N = 148). RESULTS: About 82% woulduse antidepressants (sertraline being the most preferred one). Benzodiazepines and antipsychotics were significantly more frequently recommended by participants from CEE (33 and 4%, respectively), compared to participants from NE (11 and 0%) and SE (9% and 3%). About 52% of clinicians recommended trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy and 35% psychoeducation, irrespective of their origin. In the latent class analysis, we identified four distinct "profiles" of clinicians. In Class 1 (N = 367), psychiatrists would less often recommend any antidepressants. In Class 2 (N = 51), clinicians would recommend trazodone and prolonged exposure therapy. In Class 3 (N = 65), they propose mirtazapine and eye movement desensitization reprocessing therapy. In Class 4 (N = 128), clinicians propose different types of medications and cognitive processing therapy. About 50.1% of participants in each region stated they do not adhere to recognized treatment guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' decisions for PTSD are broadly similar among European psychiatrists, but regional differences suggest the need for more dialogue and education to harmonize practice across Europe and promote the use of guidelines.

Experiences of healthcare staff providing community-based mental healthcare as a multidisciplinary community mental health team in Central and Eastern Europe findings from the RECOVER-E project: an observational intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTs) deliver healthcare that supports the recovery of people with mental illness. The aim of this paper was to explore to what extent team members of five CMHTs newly implemented in five countries perceived that they had introduced aspects of the recovery-oriented, strength-based approach into care after a training week on recovery-oriented practice. In addition, it evaluated what the team members' perceptions on their care roles and their level of confidence with this role were. METHOD: An observational intervention study using a quantitative survey that was administered among 52 health professionals (21 Nurses, 13 Psychiatrists, 9 Psychologists, 8 Social Workers) and 14 peer workers including the Recovery Self-Assessment Tool Provider Version (RSA-P), the Team Member Self-Assessment Tool (TMSA), and demographic questions was conducted. The measures were self-reported. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the means and standard deviations for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables (TMSA tool and demographic data). The standard technique to calculate scale scores for each subscale of the RSA-P was used. Bivariate linear regression analyses were applied to explore the impact of predictors on the subscales of the RSA-P. Predictors with significant effects were included in multiple regression models. RESULT: The RSA-P showed that all teams had the perception that they provide recovery-oriented practice to a moderately high degree after a training week on recovery-oriented care (mean scores between 3.85-4.46). Health professionals with fewer years of professional experience perceived more frequently that they operated in a recovery-oriented way (p = 0.036, B = - 0.268). Nurses and peer workers did not feel confident or responsible to fulfil specific roles. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that a one-week training session on community-based practices and collaborative teamwork may enhance recovery-oriented practice, but the role of nurses and peer workers needs further attention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Each trial was registered before participant enrolment in the clinicaltrials.gov database: Croatia, Zagreb (Trial Reg. No. NCT03862209 ); Montenegro, Kotor (Trial Reg. No. NCT03837340 ); Romania, Suceava (Trial Reg. No. NCT03884933 ); Macedonia, Skopje (Trial Reg. No. NCT03892473 ); Bulgaria, Sofia (Trial Reg. No. NCT03922425 ).

Towards community-based and recovery-oriented care for severe mental disorders in Southern and Eastern Europe: aims and design of a multi-country implementation and evaluation study (RECOVER-E).

BACKGROUND: Substantial strides have been made around the world in reforming mental health systems by shifting away from institutional care towards community-based services. Despite an extensive evidence base on what constitutes effective care for people with severe mental ill-health, many people in Europe do not have access to optimal mental health care. In an effort to consolidate previous efforts to improve community mental health care and support the complex transition from hospital-based to community-based care delivery, the RECOVER-E (LaRge-scalE implementation of COmmunity based mental health care for people with seVere and Enduring mental ill health in EuRopE) project aims to implement and evaluate multidisciplinary community mental health teams in five countries in Central and Eastern Europe. This paper provides a brief overview of the RECOVER-E project and its methods. METHODS: Five implementation sites were selected (Sofia, Bulgaria; Zagreb, Croatia; Skopje, North Macedonia; Kotor, Montenegro; Siret-Suceava, Romania) where hospital-based mental health services are available (care as usual, CAU) for patients with severe mental disorders (severe depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia). The intervention consists of the introduction of a new service delivery model in each site, consisting of community-based recovery-oriented care delivered by trained multidisciplinary community mental health teams (including a peer worker with lived experience of a severe mental disorder). The implementation outcomes of the teams and the effect of the team's approach on patient and service utilisation outcomes will be evaluated using a mix of research methods. The study includes five planned hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials (1 per site) with patient-level randomization (n = 180, with patients randomised to either care as usual or intervention condition). Effectiveness is evaluated using a pragmatic non-blinded design with patients randomised into two parallel groups: receiving new community-based care or receiving usual care in the form of institutional, hospital-based mental health care. Trial-based health economic evaluation will be conducted; implementation outcomes will be evaluated, with data aligned with dimensions from the RE-AIM framework. Pathways to sustaining project results will be developed through policy dialogue sessions, which will be carried out in each country and through ongoing policy engagement activities at the European level. DISCUSSION: The RECOVER-E project has been developed and conducted to demonstrate the impact of implementing an evidence-based service delivery model for people with severe mental illness in different contexts in middle-income countries in Central and Eastern Europe. It is expected that the results will contribute to the growing evidence-base on the health and economic benefits of recovery-oriented and community-based service models for health systems in transition.Trial registration Each trial was registered before participant enrolment in the clinicaltrials.gov database: Site-Croatia, Zagreb (Trial Reg. No. NCT03862209); Montenegro, Kotor (Trial Reg. No. NCT03837340); Romania, Suceava (Trial Reg. No. NCT03884933); Macedonia, Skopje (Trial Reg. No. NCT03892473); Bulgaria, Sofia (Trial Reg. No. NCT03922425).

Pharmaceutical care in a long-stay psychiatric hospital.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate implementation of services provided by a clinical pharmacist for long-term-hospitalised patients with schizophrenia in a pharmaceutical-care-naive developing country. METHOD: This was a prospective, healthcare-system, interventional, 'before-and-after' study. Long-term (≥6 months) inpatients with schizophrenia were included. A clinical pharmacist reviewed the full patient notes, identified drug-related problems (DRPs), and proposed interventions using a DRP Registration Form (PCNE classification V6.2). Acceptance rate and outcomes of interventions were assessed. RESULTS: For 49 patients, 71 DRPs were identified, ranging from one to four problems/patient (1.43±0.68), predominantly related to tolerability and treatment effectiveness. The DRPs were mostly caused (N=184) by inappropriate drug selection (64%) or dose (23.4%): too many drugs for indication (N=33); a non-cost-effective choice (N=29); inappropriate combination (N=27); an inappropriate drug (N=23); lack of therapeutic drug monitoring (N=14); subtherapeutic (N=13) or supratherapeutic (N=11) dosing. Excessive treatment duration was observed for 14 DRPs. The clinical pharmacist proposed 182 interventions (70% at the drug level): discontinuation of medication (N=58); dosage change (N=35); other interventions (monitoring) (N=35); a change of drug (N=18) or instructions for use (N=9); and/or introduction of a new drug (N=7). Physicians accepted 91 interventions and refused 36. Finally, 38 DRPs were solved (25 completely and 13 partially), for 25 a solution was either not needed or not possible, and, for eight, the outcome was not known. CONCLUSIONS: The study underlines the high potential for pharmaceutical care to improve prescribing practices in developing countries without shared pharmacist-physician decision-making.