The effect of intensive case management on the relatives of patients with severe mental illness

Objective: Relatives play a vital role in caring for patients with severe mental illness but receive inadequate support from psychiatric services. Evidence suggests that although intensive case management is directed primarily at patients, relatives may benefit a's well. This study examined whether relatives of patients who were receiving intensive case management had more contact with mental health professionals than relatives of patients who were receiving standard case management. It also examined whether relatives of patients receiving intensive case management appraised caregiving less negatively and experienced less psychological distress than relatives of patients receiving standard case management. Methods: The sample was drawn from the pool of patients participating in the UK700 randomized controlled trial of intensive case management. Prospective data on contact between case managers and the relatives of 146 patients were collected over a two-year period. At a two-year follow-up assessment, relatives of 116 patients were. interviewed with the Experience of Caregiving Inventory and the 12-item General Health Questionnaire. Results: Considerably more relatives of patients receiving intensive case management had contact with a case manager during the study period than relatives of patients receiving standard case management (70 percent compared with 45 percent). However, relatives of patients receiving intensive case management did not-appraise caregiving less negatively or experience less psychological distress than relatives of patients who were receiving. standard case management. Conclusions: Reducing case managers' caseloads alone. will not guarantee adequate support for relatives.. Instead, providing more support will need to be an explicit aim, and staff will require specific additional training to achieve it.

Relatives of patients with severe mental disorders: unique traits and experiences of primary, nonprimary, and lone caregivers

The authors examined caregivers' characteristics and experiences. Previously suggested principles for identifying the primary caregiver in 22 multiple-caregiver families were assessed, but none reliably distinguished the primary caregiver. The authors then compared primary (n = 22), nonprimary (n = 22), and lone caregivers' (n = 43) appraisals of caregiving and psychological distress. Lone and primary caregivers' experiences were similar. but nonprimary caregivers' experiences were less adverse. Despite these findings, greater psyhcological distress in primary caregivers indicated greater psychological distress in nonprimary caregivers.

Continuity of care for carers of people with severe mental illness: results of a longitudinal study

Introduction: Continuity of care has been demonstrated to be important for service users and carer groups have voiced major concerns over disruptions of care. We aimed to assess the experienced continuity of care in carers of patients with both psychotic and non-psychotic disorders and explore its association with carer characteristics and psychological well-being. Methods: Friends and relatives caring for two groups of service users in the care of community mental health teams (CMHTs), 69 with psychotic and 38 with non-psychotic disorders, were assessed annually at three and two time points, respectively. CONTINUES, a measure specifically designed to assess continuity of care for carers themselves, was utilized along with assessments of psychological well-being and caregiving. Results: One hundred and seven carers participated. They reported moderately low continuity of care. Only 22 had had a carer’s assessment and just under a third recorded psychological distress on the GHQ. For those caring for people with psychotic disorders, reported continuity was higher if the carer was male, employed, lived with the user and had had a carer’s assessment; for those caring for people with non-psychotic disorders, it was higher if the carer was from the service user’s immediate family, lived with them and had had a carer’s assessment. Conclusion: The vast majority of the carers had not had a carer’s assessment provided by the CMHT despite this being a clear national priority and being an intervention with obvious potential to increase carers’ reported low levels of continuity of care. Improving continuity of contact with carers may have an important part to play in the overall improvement of care in this patient group and deserves greater attention.