Marie Nolin1, Ashok Malla2, Phil Tibbo3, Ross Norman4, Amal Abdel-Baki5. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Montreal, Montréal, Québec. 2. Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montréal, Québec Prevention and Early Intervention Program for the Psychoses, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, Montréal, Québec. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia Nova Scotia Early Psychosis Program, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 4. Departments of Psychiatry and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of Montreal, Montréal, Québec amal.abdel-baki@umontreal.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis have been developed in several countries, including Canada. There is some agreement about the program elements considered essential for improving the long-term outcomes for patients in the early phase of psychotic disorders. In the absence of national standards, the current state of EIS for psychosis in Canada needs to be examined in relation to expert recommendations currently available. METHOD: A detailed online benchmark survey was developed and administered to 11 Canadian academic EIS programs covering administrative, clinical, education, and research domains. In addition, an electronic database and Internet search was conducted to find existing guidelines for EIS. Survey results were then compared with the existing expert recommendations. RESULTS: Most of the surveyed programs offer similar services, in line with published expert recommendations (i.e., easy and rapid access, intensive follow-up through case management with emphasis on patient engagement and continuity of care, and a range of integrated evidence-based psychosocial interventions). However, differences are observed among programs in admission and discharge criteria, services for patients at ultra high risk (UHR) for psychosis, patient to clinician ratios, accessibility of services, and existence of specific inpatient units. These seem to diverge from expert recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Although Canadian programs are following most expert recommendations on clinical components of care, some programs lack administrative and organizational elements considered essential. Continued mentoring and networking of clinicians through organizations such as the Canadian Consortium for Early Intervention in Psychosis (CCEIP), as well as the development of a fidelity scale through further research, could possibly help programs attain and maintain the best standards of early intervention. However, simply making clinical guidelines available to care providers is not sufficient for changing practices; this will need to be accompanied by adequate funding and support from organizations and policy makers.
OBJECTIVE: Early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis have been developed in several countries, including Canada. There is some agreement about the program elements considered essential for improving the long-term outcomes for patients in the early phase of psychotic disorders. In the absence of national standards, the current state of EIS for psychosis in Canada needs to be examined in relation to expert recommendations currently available. METHOD: A detailed online benchmark survey was developed and administered to 11 Canadian academic EIS programs covering administrative, clinical, education, and research domains. In addition, an electronic database and Internet search was conducted to find existing guidelines for EIS. Survey results were then compared with the existing expert recommendations. RESULTS: Most of the surveyed programs offer similar services, in line with published expert recommendations (i.e., easy and rapid access, intensive follow-up through case management with emphasis on patient engagement and continuity of care, and a range of integrated evidence-based psychosocial interventions). However, differences are observed among programs in admission and discharge criteria, services for patients at ultra high risk (UHR) for psychosis, patient to clinician ratios, accessibility of services, and existence of specific inpatient units. These seem to diverge from expert recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Although Canadian programs are following most expert recommendations on clinical components of care, some programs lack administrative and organizational elements considered essential. Continued mentoring and networking of clinicians through organizations such as the Canadian Consortium for Early Intervention in Psychosis (CCEIP), as well as the development of a fidelity scale through further research, could possibly help programs attain and maintain the best standards of early intervention. However, simply making clinical guidelines available to care providers is not sufficient for changing practices; this will need to be accompanied by adequate funding and support from organizations and policy makers.
Keywords:
early intervention; evidence-based practice; government mental health policy; mental health services organization; psychosis; schizophrenia; treatment guidelines
Authors: Lone Petersen; Anne Thorup; Johan Øqhlenschlaeger; Torben Øqstergaard Christensen; Pia Jeppesen; Gertrud Krarup; Per Jørrgensen; Erik Lykke Mortensen; Merete Nordentoft Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Stanley V Catts; Russell W Evans; Brian I O'Toole; Vaughan J Carr; Terry Lewin; Amanda L Neil; Meredith G Harris; Aaron D J Frost; Belinda R Crissman; Kathy Eadie Journal: Early Interv Psychiatry Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Salvatore De Masi; Letizia Sampaolo; Alfonso Mele; Cristina Morciano; Salvatore Cappello; Anna Meneghelli; Giovanni De Girolamo Journal: Early Interv Psychiatry Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Donald Addington; Elizabeth Anderson; Martina Kelly; Alain Lesage; Chris Summerville Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Nev Jones; Sarah Kamens; Oladunni Oluwoye; Franco Mascayano; Chris Perry; Marc Manseau; Michael T Compton Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Nicole Kozloff; George Foussias; Janet Durbin; Sanjeev Sockalingam; Jean Addington; Donald Addington; Augustina Ampofo; Kelly K Anderson; Melanie Barwick; Sarah Bromley; Jasmyn E A Cunningham; Simone Dahrouge; Lillian Duda; Catherine Ford; Sheila Gallagher; John D Haltigan; Joanna Henderson; Alexia Jaouich; Dielle Miranda; Patrick Mitchell; Josette Morin; Claire de Oliveira; Valerie Primeau; Eva Serhal; Sophie Soklaridis; Diana Urajnik; Krista Whittard; Juveria Zaheer; Paul Kurdyak; Aristotle N Voineskos Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jessica D'Arcey; Joanna Collaton; Nicole Kozloff; Aristotle N Voineskos; Sean A Kidd; George Foussias Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2020-04-02