OBJECTIVE: Recent years have witnessed widespread interest in the early phase of psychotic disorders. The most widely used approach to identify individuals in the prodromal phase is the ultra-high risk (UHR) approach, which combines known trait and state risk factors for psychotic disorder. The Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation Clinic introduced the Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental States (CAARMS) in order to assess UHR status. A training DVD and manual in the use of the CAARMS was recently developed in order to assist with UHR identification. The current paper reports the outcome of a series of training workshops with mental health professionals based around this DVD. The research aim was to investigate whether the training workshops assisted mental health professionals in their confidence and ability to accurately identify UHR cases and distinguish these from non-UHR and first-episode psychosis (FEP) cases. METHOD: A total of 137 mental health workers participated in the training sessions across eight training sites. The training sessions consisted of four modules: theoretical background; rating written vignettes for UHR, non-UHR or FEP status; viewing and discussing the CAARMS Training DVD; and re-rating matched written vignettes for UHR, non-UHR or FEP status. RESULTS: Participants' confidence in identifying UHR cases and in using the CAARMS increased as a result of the workshop. Participants' ability to correctly identify UHR-positive cases did not improve as a result of the workshop. This may have been the result of a ceiling effect due to the baseline ability to identify UHR-positive cases being high. But there was a trend for participants' ability to correctly identify UHR-negative cases to improve as a result of the workshop. CONCLUSIONS: UHR training workshops are a valuable means of increasing mental health workers' confidence in identifying UHR patients. Future UHR training programmes with experienced mental health professionals should pay particular attention to the correct identification of UHR-negative cases.
OBJECTIVE: Recent years have witnessed widespread interest in the early phase of psychotic disorders. The most widely used approach to identify individuals in the prodromal phase is the ultra-high risk (UHR) approach, which combines known trait and state risk factors for psychotic disorder. The Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation Clinic introduced the Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental States (CAARMS) in order to assess UHR status. A training DVD and manual in the use of the CAARMS was recently developed in order to assist with UHR identification. The current paper reports the outcome of a series of training workshops with mental health professionals based around this DVD. The research aim was to investigate whether the training workshops assisted mental health professionals in their confidence and ability to accurately identify UHR cases and distinguish these from non-UHR and first-episode psychosis (FEP) cases. METHOD: A total of 137 mental health workers participated in the training sessions across eight training sites. The training sessions consisted of four modules: theoretical background; rating written vignettes for UHR, non-UHR or FEP status; viewing and discussing the CAARMS Training DVD; and re-rating matched written vignettes for UHR, non-UHR or FEP status. RESULTS:Participants' confidence in identifying UHR cases and in using the CAARMS increased as a result of the workshop. Participants' ability to correctly identify UHR-positive cases did not improve as a result of the workshop. This may have been the result of a ceiling effect due to the baseline ability to identify UHR-positive cases being high. But there was a trend for participants' ability to correctly identify UHR-negative cases to improve as a result of the workshop. CONCLUSIONS: UHR training workshops are a valuable means of increasing mental health workers' confidence in identifying UHR patients. Future UHR training programmes with experienced mental health professionals should pay particular attention to the correct identification of UHR-negative cases.
Authors: Gregory P Strauss; Andrea Pelletier-Baldelli; Katherine Frost Visser; Elaine F Walker; Vijay A Mittal Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2020-06-07 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Clara Martínez-Cao; Lorena de la Fuente-Tomás; Ainoa García-Fernández; Leticia González-Blanco; Pilar A Sáiz; María Paz Garcia-Portilla; Julio Bobes Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 7.989
Authors: Alison R Yung; Stephen J Wood; Ashok Malla; Barnaby Nelson; Patrick McGorry; Jai Shah Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 7.723