Assertive community treatment for elderly people with severe mental illness

Background: Adults aged 65 and older with severe mental illnesses are a growing segment of the Dutch population. Some of them have a range of serious problems and are also difficult to engage. While assertive community treatment is a common model for treating difficult to engage severe mental illnesses patients, no special form of it is available for the elderly. A special assertive community treatment team for the elderly is developed in Rotterdam, the Netherlands and tested for its effectiveness.Methods: We will use a randomized controlled trial design to compare the effects of assertive community treatment for the elderly with those of care as usual. Primary outcome measures will be the number of dropouts, the number of patients engaged in care and patient's psychiatric symptoms, somatic symptoms, and social functioning. Secondary outcome measures are the number of unmet needs, the subjective quality of life and patients' satisfaction. Other secondary outcomes include the number of crisis contacts, rates of voluntary and involuntary admission, and length of stay. Inclusion criteria are aged 65 plus, the presence of a mental disorder, a lack of motivation for treatment and at least four suspected problems with functioning (addiction, somatic problems, daily living activities, housing etc.). If patients meet the inclusion criteria, they will be randomly allocated to either assertive community treatment for the elderly or care as usual. Trained assessors will use mainly observational instruments at the following time points: at baseline, after 9 and 18 months.Discussion: This study will help establish whether assertive community treatment for the elderly produces better results than care as usual in elderly people with severe mental illnesses who are difficult to engage. When assertive community treatment for the elderly proves valuable in these respects, it can be tested and implemented more widely, and mechanisms for its effects investigated

Patients’ Preference and Experiences of Forced Medication and Seclusion

This study examined patients’ preferences for coercive methods and the extent to which patients’ choices were determined by previous experience, demographic, clinical and intervention-setting variables. Before discharge from closed psychiatric units, 161 adult patients completed a questionnaire. The association between patients’ preferences and the underlying variables was analyzed using logistic regression. We found that patients’ preferences were mainly defined by earlier experiences: patients without coercive experiences or who had had experienced seclusion and forced medication, favoured forced medication. Those who had been secluded preferred seclusion in future emergencies, but only if they approved its duration. This suggests that seclusion, if it does not last too long, does not have to be abandoned from psychiatric practices. In an emergency, however, most patients prefer to be medicated. Our findings show that patients’ preferences cannot guide the establishment of international uniform methods for managing violent behaviour. Therefore patients’ individual choices should be considered

Post-Pandemic Maternity Care Planning for Vaccination: A Qualitative Study of the Experiences of Women, Partners, Health Care Professionals, and Policy Makers in the United Kingdom.

Maternal vaccination during pregnancy, in general and against COVID-19 infection, offers protection to both mother and baby, but uptake remains suboptimal. This study aimed to explore the perceptions regarding COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy, particularly for marginalised populations and those living with social or medical complexity. A total of 96 semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 40 women, 15 partners, 21 HCPs, and 20 policy makers, across all four nations of the United Kingdom (UK), discussing their lived experience of utilising, delivering, or developing policy for COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy during the pandemic. Three themes were derived: (1) historical and social context, (2) communication of information and guidance, and (3) appraisal and action. Together these captured the participants' legacy of mistrust in drugs during pregnancy; prior positive experiences; concerns about missing information, conflicting information, or false information about COVID-19 vaccines; and confusing guidance for pregnant women. The final theme describes the participants' behaviour and actions undertaken consequent to their experiences and the available information. The findings suggest efforts to improve COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy may be best focused on personalised communication of information. A trusting relationship and prior positive experiences with other vaccines, both in and outside of pregnancy, positively influenced perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination