Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental illness: the effect on hospital use and costs.

Department of Health Policy and Management and Center for Research on Services for Severe Mental Illness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 07/1999; 34(2):577-601.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the effect of the Program for Assertive Community Treatment (PACT) model on psychiatric inpatient service use in a population of non-emergency psychiatric patients with severe chronic mental illness, and to test for variations in this effect with program staffing levels and patient characteristics such as race and age.
Data are taken from a randomized trial of PACT in Charleston, South Carolina for 144 patients recruited from August 1989 through July 1991.
Subjects were randomly assigned either to one of two PACT programs or to usual care at a local mental health center. Effects on hospital use were measured over an 18-month follow-up period via multiple regression analysis.
Data were obtained from Medicaid claims, chart reviews, subject, case manager, and family interviews; searches of the computerized patient and financial databases of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health and relevant hospitals; and searches of the hard copy and computerized financial databases of the two major local hospitals providing inpatient psychiatric care.
PACT participants were about 40 percent less likely to be hospitalized during the follow-up period. The effect was stronger for older patients. Lower PACT client/staff ratios also reduced the risk of hospitalization. No evidence of differential race effects was found. Given some hospital use, PACT did not influence the number of days of use.
Controlling for other covariates, PACT significantly reduces hospitalizations but the size of this effect varies with patient and program characteristics. This study shows that previous results on PACT can be applied to non-emergency patients even when the control condition is an up-to-date CMHC office-based case management program.


Available from: David Salkever, May 30, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract To make a difference to patients who increasingly suffer multiple chronic conditions, in a healthcare system that is capable of providing excellent care but is often ineffective and at cross-purposes in its application, means being prepared to take a different approach not only to the delivery of patient care, but to the education of physicians and other healthcare professionals. The model we must now practice and teach is one that emphasizes collaboration and prevention, quality and efficiency. Changes in practice recommended by the 2001 US Institute of Medicine report are being implemented system-wide, following the enactment of the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This paper discusses the evolving needs of patients with chronic psychiatric illness, and the psychiatrist's role in a rapidly changing healthcare landscape as a care provider, an interdisciplinary role model, and educator. In an aging population in which multi-morbidity is the norm, episodic, crisis-driven care is prohibitively expensive and does not serve patients well. Yet we still teach that model of care. The medications we prescribe for psychiatric illness, particularly antipsychotics, can cause and/or aggravate some of the commonest chronic medical illnesses; psychiatric educators must address the management of these complications. The management of chronic psychiatric illness in multi-morbid patients demands that we practice and teach a 'whole patient' approach to care, preferably delivered as part of a patient-centred team. The Affordable Care Act has mandated and created opportunities for new models designed to facilitate this, and a paradigm shift is needed in medical education. Clinicians must become adept at identifying underlying and contributing factors and collaborating with the patient, other providers, and the patient's family and significant others. Psychiatric formulation and patient care rely on these principles; we must now teach their application to other specialties, disciplines and professions.
    International Review of Psychiatry 06/2013; 25(3):319-28. DOI:10.3109/09540261.2013.782854 · 1.80 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Frequent users of health care services are a relatively small group of patients who account for a disproportionately large amount of health care utilization. We conducted a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions to improve the coordination of care to reduce health care utilization in this patient group. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception until May 2014 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing quality improvement strategies for the coordination of care of frequent users of the health care system. Articles were screened, and data abstracted and appraised for quality by 2 reviewers, independently. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted. Results: We identified 36 RCTs and 14 companion reports (total 7494 patients). Significantly fewer patients in the intervention group than in the control group were admitted to hospital (relative risk [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.91). In subgroup analyses, a similar effect was observed among patients with chronic medical conditions other than mental illness, but not among patients with mental illness. In addition, significantly fewer patients 65 years and older in the intervention group than in the control group visited emergency departments (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.89). Interpretation: We found that quality improvement strategies for coordination of care reduced hospital admissions among patients with chronic conditions other than mental illness and reduced emergency department visits among older patients. Our results may help clinicians and policy-makers reduce utilization through the use of strategies that target the system (team changes, case management) and the patient (promotion of self-management).
    Canadian Medical Association journal 09/2014; DOI:10.1503/cmaj.140289 · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Criteria for psychiatric hospitalization have undergone marked changes. Efforts to limit length-of-hospitalization risk greater morbidity at discharge and increased needs for appropriate aftercare. Accordingly, we evaluated factors associated with length of psychiatric hospitalization and aftercare-types. We reviewed medical records of 589 patients with major psychiatric disorders hospitalized in a university-affiliated, not-for-profit psychiatric hospital to identify characteristics associated with length of hospitalization, types of aftercare and insurance coverage, using standard bivariate and multivariate analytical methods. Notable factors associated with longer hospitalization included: more highly supervised aftercare, diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective>affective disorders, longer illnesses, higher antipsychotic doses and more complex drug-treatments at discharge, lower GAF functional status, unemployment, being unmarried, as well as public vs. private insurance. Multivariate modeling sustained association of longer hospitalization with higher antipsychotic doses, more structured aftercare, public insurance, lower GAF scores, and diagnoses of chronic psychotic disorders. Structured aftercare was associated with younger age, fewer years ill, and private insurance, but varied little by diagnosis and was unrelated to ethnicity. Public insurance was associated notably with being unemployed, unmarried, less functional, having a chronic psychotic disorder for more years, and lack of structured aftercare. Illness severity and functional impairment may modulate efforts to limit psychiatric hospitalization. Higher-level aftercare was associated with illness and disability factors as well as with private insurance; public insurance was associated with dysfunction, unemployment and chronic illness, as well as longer hospitalization.
    Comprehensive psychiatry 11/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.11.004 · 2.26 Impact Factor