|
|
|||||||||||
*School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, correspondence: Early Detection and Intervention Team, 1 Miller Street, Aston, Birmingham B6 4NH, email: k.brunet{at}bham.ac.uk
School of Psychology, University of Birmingham
Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham
School of Psychology, University of Birmingham
|
|
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
To dissect duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) into three components: help-seeking delay, referral delay and delay in mental health services, all mental health services in a defined geographical region were screened over a period of 1 year. All cases of first-episode psychosis without a primary mood disorder were identified (n=55).
RESULTS
The median delay within secondary services was over seven times the delay in the referral pathway. The mean delay in mental health services accounted for 35% of overall DUP.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Intervention is required in secondary as well as primary care services if DUP is to be reduced.
|
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
It has been suggested that DUP is not a unitary variable but is composed of distinct intervals. In France, Cougnard et al (2004) reported a median delay of 9 weeks between the first psychotic symptom and the first helping contact. A Canadian study (Norman et al, 2004) reported a comparable delay component with a median duration of 5.1 weeks and a mean of 25.1 weeks. Norman et al (2004) reported a second component reflecting the delay between help-seeking commencement and antipsychotic medication, with a median duration of 5.1 weeks and a mean of 44.6 weeks. However, this second component included both delays in the referral pathway to secondary services and delays within secondary services themselves.
The present study investigates the duration of all three components (delays in help-seeking, referral pathways and mental health services) in a geographically defined inner-city area not yet supported by an early intervention service.
|
|
Method |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Procedure
Weekly contact with admission units, home treatment teams and out-patient
clinics were established to proactively screen all new cases using the World
Health Organization (1992)
checklist. In addition, all letters to general practitioners (GPs) from
consultants were screened.
Individuals meeting the inclusion criteria were invited to take part during recovery from their first episode. Details of symptom onset and development, pathways to care, medication and treatment adherence were collected from mental health records. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clients and with key relatives where possible. Pathways to care were recorded using an adapted version of the Pathways Encounter Form (Gater et al, 1991).
Definitions
Onset of non-specific symptoms was defined in accordance with
symptoms listed by Beiser et al
(1993).
Onset of psychosis followed the definition used by Larsen et al (1996) and required either one symptom from the positive scale of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (Kay et al, 1987) at a level of 4 or above in the context of a manifestation of psychotic symptoms; or a cluster of these symptoms including either delusions, conceptual disorganisation or hallucinatory behaviour and reaching a total rating of 7 or more (excluding absent ratings). Symptoms had to be present for a minimum of 2 weeks unless remission was due to treatment.
First help-seeking contact on the pathway to care including any individual other than friends or family.
Onset of criteria treatment required antipsychotic treatment either: at dosage levels recommended by the British National Formulary (for example 2 mg risperidone; British Medical Association & Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2001) with participants taking medication regularly for 1 month after commencement; or leading to a significant reduction in symptoms.
The lead researcher (K.B.) conducted all calculations of treatment delays and pathways to care.
|
|
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Participants were predominantly male (73%), single (75%) and living with parents or guardians (62%). Ages ranged between 14 and 35 years, with a mean age of 23 years at the onset of psychosis. The majority did not hold educational qualifications above the General Certificate of Education or National Vocational Qualification level 1 (66%), and were unemployed (64%). Participants were of South Asian (48%), White (38%), Black (6%) and dual (7%) ethnicity.
Components of treatment delay
Thirteen (24%) participants sought help during the prepsychotic period.
Table 1 presents data for the
three components of DUP, each of which included extreme values and
demonstrated high levels of variability. This was particularly true of the
delay in the commencement of help-seeking. Treatment delay components were
unrelated to socio-demographic variables, including ethnicity.
|
Most notable was the major contribution of delays within mental health services, having a median over seven times longer than the median referral delay. Mean delay in mental health services accounted for 35% of overall DUP.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Qualitative information from the Pathways Encounter Form indicated a number of potential contributors to delays in mental health services. Overwhelming service pressures often led to long waiting lists for initial appointments, a delay compounded when individuals failing to attend three appointments were automatically discharged and underwent a lengthy re-referral process. Delays also occurred where ambiguous presentations led to diagnostic uncertainty and a course of non-antipsychotic intervention before psychosis was identified. In some cases this was avoided through periods of drug-free assessment, thus postponing criteria treatment. Finally, once a thorough assessment had been completed and psychosis identified, some individuals elected not to take antipsychotic medication.
These observations warrant further investigation both locally and nationally to inform the development of appropriate strategies for early intervention service teams. Organisational changes may enable more prompt assessments, and more assertive approaches could avoid premature discharge where clients are unable or unwilling to attend out-patient appointments. Clearer protocols for the definition and treatment of first episodes, and specialist training within secondary services might also accelerate identification and treatment. Finally, a drive to improve initial service engagement might reduce treatment delay.
These observations are congruent with the guidance for early intervention services outlined in the Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide (Department of Health, 2001); it might be anticipated that the introduction of these early intervention services would directly influence these care pathways in mental health services.
We would caution that the onset of psychotic symptoms and onset of criteria treatment remain arbitrary time-points. Our definition of criteria treatment is certainly not intended to discourage drug-free assessment or to imply that pharmacological treatment is the only intervention considered adequate. Indeed one study has reported an association between longer delay in intensive psychosocial intervention and poorer prognosis (de Haan et al, 2003). Nevertheless, here we apply a consistent definition and the relative contribution of delays in mental health services is apparent.
The combined delay in referral and within services (mean=23.5 weeks) was shorter than that reported in Canada (44.6 weeks; Norman et al, 2004). However, as mean DUP is commonly affected by extreme values a meaningful comparison would require median values of referral delay and delays in mental health services. Mean help-seeking delay (29.8 weeks) was comparable to Norman et als report of 25.1 weeks; however, the median help-seeking delay in Birmingham (2.6 weeks) was shorter than that reported either in Canada (5.1 weeks; Norman et al, 2004) or in France (9 weeks; Cougnard et al, 2004). Therefore it appears that although a number of individuals experienced very long delays in this inner-city UK cohort, the majority sought help quickly in comparison with their counterparts in Canada or France. These findings were independent of ethnicity and echo the recent findings of Morgan et al (2006); however, in the present sample there were more Asian and few Black participants.
Duration of untreated psychosis among patients declining to take part in studies may be longer than DUP among participants (Friis et al, 2004). It may therefore be that DUP and its components were underestimated in the present study, although it remains unknown which components of DUP might vary according to willingness to participate. These results are also specific to individuals aged between 14 and 35, in line with Department of Health guidelines for early intervention service development (Department of Health, 2001).
|
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ROYAL PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN (2001) British National Formulary. BMJ Books & Pharmaceutical Press.
COUGNARD, A., KALMI, E., DESAGE, A., et al (2004) Pathways to care of first-admitted subjects with psychosis in South-Western France. Psychological Medicine, 34, 267 -276.[CrossRef][Medline]
DE HAAN, L., LINSZEN, D. H., LENIOR, M. E., et al
(2003) Duration of untreated psychosis and outcome of
schizophrenia. Delay in intensive psychosocial treatment versus delay in
treatment with anti psychotic medication. Schizophrenia
Bulletin, 29, 341
-348.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2001) The Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide. Department of Health.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2002) The NHS Plan: Improvement, Expansion and Reform. Department of Health.
FRIIS, S., MELLE, I., LARSEN, T. K., et al (2004) Does duration of untreated psychosis bias study samples of first-episode psychosis? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 110, 286 -291.[CrossRef][Medline]
GATER, R., SOUSA, B. D., BARRIENTOS, G., et al (1991) The pathways to psychiatric care - a cross-cultural study. Psychological Medicine, 21, 761 -774.[Medline]
KAY, S. R., FISZBEIN, A. & OPLER, L. A. (1987) The
Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia Bulletin,
13, 261
-276.
LARSEN, T. K., McGLASHAN, T. H. & MOE, L. C.
(1996) First-episode schizophrenia. 1. Early course parameters.
Schizophrenia Bulletin,
22, 241
-256.
MARSHALL, M., LEWIS, S., LOCKWOOD, A., et al
(2005) Association between duration of untreated psychosis and
outcome in cohorts of first episode patients - A systematic review.
Archives of General Psychiatry,
62, 975
-983.
McGORRY, P., EDWARDS, J., MIHALOPOULOS, C., et al
(1996) EPPIC: An evolving system of early detection and optimal
management. Schizophrenia Bulletin,
22, 305
-326.
MELLE, I., LARSEN, T. K., HAAHR, U., et al
(2004) Reducing the duration of untreated first-episode
psychosis. Effects on clinical presentation. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 61, 143
-150.
MORGAN, C., FEARON, P., HUTCHINSON, G., et al (2006) Duration of untreated psychosis and ethnicity in the AESOP first-onset psychosis study. Psychological Medicine, 36, 239 -247.[CrossRef][Medline]
NORMAN, R. M. G., MALLA, A. K., VERDI, M. B., et al (2004) Understanding delay in treatment for first-episode psychosis. Psychological Medicine, 34, 255 -266.[CrossRef][Medline]
TAIT, L., LESTER, H., BIRCHWOOD, M., et al (2005) Design of the Birmingham early detection in untreated psychosis trial (REDIRECT): cluster randomized controlled trial of general practitioner education in detection of first episode psychosis. BMC Health Services Research, 5, 19 .[CrossRef][Medline]
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (1992) The ICD-10 International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (10th Revision). WHO.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| British Journal of Psychiatry | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |