Helen J Stain1,2, Lauren Mawn3, Stephanie Common2, Marie Pilton4, Andrew Thompson5,6. 1. School of Social and Health Sciences, Leeds Trinity University, Durham, UK. 2. Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, Durham, UK. 3. School of Psychology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 4. Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 5. Division of Mental Health and Wellbeing, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 6. Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Partnership Trust, Coventry, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials show interventions for young people at ultra-high risk (UHR) of developing psychosis are effective both clinically and economically. While research evidence has begun to be integrated into clinical guidelines, there is a lack of research on the implementation of these guidelines. This paper examines service provision for UHR individuals in accordance with current clinical guidelines within the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHOD: A self-report online survey was completed by clinical leaders of early intervention in psychosis (EIP) teams (N = 50) within the NHS across England. RESULTS: Of the 50 EIP teams responding (from 30 NHS trusts), 53% reported inclusion of the UHR group in their service mandate, with age range predominantly 14 to 35 years (81%) and service provided for at least 12 months (53%). Provision of services according to NICE clinical guidelines showed 50% of services offered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for psychosis, and 42% offered family intervention. Contrary to guidelines, 50% of services offered antipsychotic medication. Around half of services provided training in assessment by Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental States, psycho-education, CBT for psychosis, family work and treatment for anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear evidence for the benefit of early intervention in this population, current provision for UHR within EIP services in England does not match clinical guidelines. While some argue this is due to a lack of allocated funding, it is important to note the similar variable adherence to clinical guidelines in the treatment of people with established schizophrenia.
BACKGROUND: Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials show interventions for young people at ultra-high risk (UHR) of developing psychosis are effective both clinically and economically. While research evidence has begun to be integrated into clinical guidelines, there is a lack of research on the implementation of these guidelines. This paper examines service provision for UHR individuals in accordance with current clinical guidelines within the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHOD: A self-report online survey was completed by clinical leaders of early intervention in psychosis (EIP) teams (N = 50) within the NHS across England. RESULTS: Of the 50 EIP teams responding (from 30 NHS trusts), 53% reported inclusion of the UHR group in their service mandate, with age range predominantly 14 to 35 years (81%) and service provided for at least 12 months (53%). Provision of services according to NICE clinical guidelines showed 50% of services offered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for psychosis, and 42% offered family intervention. Contrary to guidelines, 50% of services offered antipsychotic medication. Around half of services provided training in assessment by Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental States, psycho-education, CBT for psychosis, family work and treatment for anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear evidence for the benefit of early intervention in this population, current provision for UHR within EIP services in England does not match clinical guidelines. While some argue this is due to a lack of allocated funding, it is important to note the similar variable adherence to clinical guidelines in the treatment of people with established schizophrenia.
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Andrés Estradé; Tom J Spencer; Susham Gupta; Silvia Murguia-Asensio; Savithasri Eranti; Kerry Wilding; Olivier Andlauer; Jonathan Buhagiar; Martin Smith; Sharon Fitzell; Victoria Sear; Adelaide Ademan; Andrea De Micheli; Philip McGuire Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Andrés Estradé; Gonzalo Salazar de Pablo; Alice Zanotti; Scott Wood; Helen L Fisher; Paolo Fusar-Poli Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 7.989
Authors: Felicity Waite; Thomas Kabir; Louise Johns; Jill Mollison; Apostolos Tsiachristas; Ariane Petit; Emma Černis; Daniel Maughan; Daniel Freeman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 2.692