ObjectiveTrauma-focused psychological treatments are recommended as first-line treatments for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), but clinicians may be concerned that the good outcomes observed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may not generalize to the wide range of traumas and presentations seen in clinical practice. This study investigated whether Cognitive Therapy for PTSD (CT-PTSD) can be effectively implemented into a UK National Health Service Outpatient Clinic serving a defined ethnically mixed urban catchment area.MethodA consecutive sample of 330 patients with PTSD (age 17–83) following a wide range of traumas were treated by 34 therapists, who received training and supervision in CT-PTSD. Pre and post treatment data (PTSD symptoms, anxiety, depression) were collected for all patients, including dropouts. Hierarchical linear modeling investigated candidate moderators of outcome and therapist effects.ResultsCT-PTSD was well tolerated and led to very large improvement in PTSD symptoms, depression and anxiety. The majority of patients showed reliable improvement/clinically significant change: intent-to-treat: 78.8%/57.3%; completer: 84.5%/65.1%. Dropouts and unreliable attenders had worse outcome. Statistically reliable symptom exacerbation with treatment was observed in only 1.2% of patients. Treatment gains were maintained during follow-up (M = 280 days, n = 220). Few of the selection criteria used in some RCTs, demographic, diagnostic and trauma characteristics moderated treatment outcome, and only social problems and needing treatment for multiple traumas showed unique moderation effects. There were no random effects of therapist on symptom improvement, but therapists who were inexperienced in CT-PTSD had more dropouts than those with greater experience.ConclusionsThe results support the effectiveness of CT-PTSD and suggest that trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy can be successfully implemented in routine clinical services treating patients with a wide range of traumas.

This paper reports on client satisfaction with community mental health services. A Client Satisfaction Interview was used as one outcome measure in a randomized controlled study of clinical case management vs. standard community care. The Interview had high internal consistency reliability (Cronbachs alpha = 0.89) with very high inter-rater reliability for overall scores (Y = 0.99) and good inter-rater reliability for individual items (kappa over 0.9 for 18 of 22 items). Case management clients had significantly higher total satisfaction scores than control group clients who received standard community care at 9 months ( t = 2.02 P = 0.05) but not at baseline (t = 0.59, P = 0.55) or 18 months (t = 1.76, P = 0.09). In addition to a quantitative measure of satisfaction, clients were asked to provide more qualitative accounts of their experience with services. The findings are discussed in relation to the team's model of case management and the differences between case management and control services. The limitations of this study are considered in the context of methodological issues surrounding measurement of client satisfaction and the study's own methodological shortcomings.

This paper describes the work of a clinical case management core team (four nurses and an occupational therapist) during the course of a week. Information was gathered through non-participant observation of the team by two independent researchers. Transcripts produced from the data recorded were examined. From this, seven categories of activity were identified: planned client contact; unplanned client contact; family/carer contact; liaison; administration; team information sharing and supervision, training and personal development. These categories were felt to encompass the range of activities practised by the team. The amount of time that case managers spent engaged in these core functions was calculated. Detailed examples are presented. Results are discussed with reference to Kanter's components and principles of clinical case management.

Objective: To compare the quality of care offered by a community hospital hostel and three hospital rehabilitation facilities (two traditional rehabilitation wards and an innovative normalisation unit) for people with longterm mental illnesses.Method: Quality of care is assessed here on three different levels: those of Input using Programme Analysis of Service Systems; Assessment of Care Environments; Process using Ward Management Practices Questionnaire; Attitudes to Treatment Questionnaire; Outcome using Rehabilitation Evaluation Hall and Baker and the Life Experiences Checklist and resident and staff questionnaires. These measures cover a range of perspectives from staff to residents, and include both standardised assessments as well as specific schedules developed for the study.Results: On Input measures, the community hospital hostel had the best scores on the Programme Analysis of Service Systems schedule, which measures the degree to which services meet predetermined normalisation criteria. On the Assessment of Care Environments it also scored favourably against other community facilities. Process measures showed no differences between units in terms of their management practices, all scoring well, but suggested some differences in staff attitudes. Staff in the community hospital hostel had the most medical approach to care, however this was accounted for by the scores of untrained staff. Qualified nurses had a more psychological approach to care. Finally on Output measures, residents in the community hospital hostel were found to be the most disabled on the REHAB scale. Despite this, they had a significantly better quality of life as assessed by the Life Experiences Checklist. Staff in the community hospital hostel had the clearest perceptions of their roles, though there were differences again in how qualified and unqualified staff perceived their work. Residents were generally satisfied with services, though residents in the community hospital hostel and in the hospital normalisation unit had the highest satisfaction levels.Conclusion: The results of this comparative evaluation show that a high standard of care, equal to or surpassing some of the best hospital provision, can be provided in the community. This is despite the fact that the residents in the community hospital hostel were more disabled. Community patients' quality of life is better in a number of domains than their hospital counterparts and even patients initially reticent about the move into the community report higher levels of satisfaction, especially regarding their home environment. There-were interesting differences between trained and unqualified staff in the community hospital hostel. Trained staff had a more psychological view of patient care and felt more supported and appreciated by the team than their untrained colleagues. The implications of these findings for community residential care are discussed.

No abstract