Joseph Connolly - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Joseph Connolly
Personality and Individual Differences, 1987
British Journal of Psychiatry, 1994
A controlled study tested whether the superior outcome of community care for serious mental illne... more A controlled study tested whether the superior outcome of community care for serious mental illness (SMI) in Madison and in Sydney would also be found in inner London. Patients from an inner London catchment area who faced emergency admission for SMI (many were violent or suicidal) were randomised to 20 months or more of either home-based care (Daily Living Programme, DLP; n = 92), or standard in-patient and later out-patient care (controls, n = 97). Most DLP patients had brief in-patient stays at some time. Measures included number and duration of in-patient admissions, independent ratings of clinical and social function, and patients' and relatives' satisfaction. Outcome was superior with home-based care. Until month 20, DLP care improved symptoms and social adjustment slightly more, and enhanced patients' and relatives' satisfaction. From 3 to 18 months DLP care greatly reduced the number of in-patient bed days as long as the DLP team was responsible for any in-patient phase its patients had. Cost was less. DLP care did not reduce the number of admissions, nor of deaths from self-harm (3 DLP, 2 control). One DLP patient killed a child. Even at 20 months many DLP and control patients still had severe symptoms, poor social adjustment, no job, and need for assertive follow-up and heavy staff input. (Beyond 20 months most gains were lost apart from satisfaction.) It is unclear how much the gain until 20 months from home-based care was due to its site of care, its being problem-centred, its teaching of daily living skills, its assertive follow-up, the home care team's keeping responsibility for any in-patient phase, its coordination of total care (case management), or to other care components. Home-based care is hard to organise and vulnerable to many factors, and needs careful training and clinical audit if gains are to be sustained.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 1994
British Journal of Psychiatry, 1992
Patients with a serious mental illness requiring admission were randomised to home care or standa... more Patients with a serious mental illness requiring admission were randomised to home care or standard hospital care. Over the initial 18 months, 60 patients entered each group and were studied for a mean of 10 months. Home care reduced hospital use by 80%, with patients being admitted for a mean of 14 days, compared with 72 days for the standard group, but this bed-saving made no difference in direct treatment costs. Home care offers individualised treatment, and many patients require continuing support with the emphasis on areas such as finances and housing.
British Medical Journal, 1992
British Journal of Psychiatry, 1994
The effect of a randomised controlled withdrawal of home-based care was studied for half of a sam... more The effect of a randomised controlled withdrawal of home-based care was studied for half of a sample of seriously mentally ill (SMI) patients from an inner London catchment area, compared with the effects of continuing home-based care. Patients, aged 18-64, had entered the trial at month 0 when facing emergency admission for SMI. After at least 20 months home-based care (Phase I), patients were randomised at month 30 into Phase II (months 30-45) to have either further home-based care (DLPII, n = 33) or be transferred to out-/in-patient care (DLP-control, n = 33). They were assessed at 30, 34, and 45 months. Phase I control patients (n = 70) were assessed again at month 45. Measures used were number and duration of in-patient admissions, independent ratings of clinical and social function, and patients' and relatives' satisfaction. The slim clinical and social gains from home-based v. out-/in-patient care during Phase I were largely lost in Phase II. Duration of crisis admissions increased from Phase I to Phase II in both DLPII and DLP-control patients. During Phase II, patients' and relatives' satisfaction remained greater for home-based than out-/in-patient care patients. At 45 months, compared with the Phase I controls, DLPII patients and relatives were more satisfied with care. Such satisfaction was independent of clinical/social gains. The loss of Phase I gains were perhaps due to attenuation of home-based care quality and to benefits of Phase I home-based care lingering into Phase II in DLP-controls. The Phase II home-based care team suffered from low morale.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 1998
Personality and Individual Differences, 1987
British Journal of Psychiatry, 1994
A controlled study tested whether the superior outcome of community care for serious mental illne... more A controlled study tested whether the superior outcome of community care for serious mental illness (SMI) in Madison and in Sydney would also be found in inner London. Patients from an inner London catchment area who faced emergency admission for SMI (many were violent or suicidal) were randomised to 20 months or more of either home-based care (Daily Living Programme, DLP; n = 92), or standard in-patient and later out-patient care (controls, n = 97). Most DLP patients had brief in-patient stays at some time. Measures included number and duration of in-patient admissions, independent ratings of clinical and social function, and patients' and relatives' satisfaction. Outcome was superior with home-based care. Until month 20, DLP care improved symptoms and social adjustment slightly more, and enhanced patients' and relatives' satisfaction. From 3 to 18 months DLP care greatly reduced the number of in-patient bed days as long as the DLP team was responsible for any in-patient phase its patients had. Cost was less. DLP care did not reduce the number of admissions, nor of deaths from self-harm (3 DLP, 2 control). One DLP patient killed a child. Even at 20 months many DLP and control patients still had severe symptoms, poor social adjustment, no job, and need for assertive follow-up and heavy staff input. (Beyond 20 months most gains were lost apart from satisfaction.) It is unclear how much the gain until 20 months from home-based care was due to its site of care, its being problem-centred, its teaching of daily living skills, its assertive follow-up, the home care team's keeping responsibility for any in-patient phase, its coordination of total care (case management), or to other care components. Home-based care is hard to organise and vulnerable to many factors, and needs careful training and clinical audit if gains are to be sustained.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 1994
British Journal of Psychiatry, 1992
Patients with a serious mental illness requiring admission were randomised to home care or standa... more Patients with a serious mental illness requiring admission were randomised to home care or standard hospital care. Over the initial 18 months, 60 patients entered each group and were studied for a mean of 10 months. Home care reduced hospital use by 80%, with patients being admitted for a mean of 14 days, compared with 72 days for the standard group, but this bed-saving made no difference in direct treatment costs. Home care offers individualised treatment, and many patients require continuing support with the emphasis on areas such as finances and housing.
British Medical Journal, 1992
British Journal of Psychiatry, 1994
The effect of a randomised controlled withdrawal of home-based care was studied for half of a sam... more The effect of a randomised controlled withdrawal of home-based care was studied for half of a sample of seriously mentally ill (SMI) patients from an inner London catchment area, compared with the effects of continuing home-based care. Patients, aged 18-64, had entered the trial at month 0 when facing emergency admission for SMI. After at least 20 months home-based care (Phase I), patients were randomised at month 30 into Phase II (months 30-45) to have either further home-based care (DLPII, n = 33) or be transferred to out-/in-patient care (DLP-control, n = 33). They were assessed at 30, 34, and 45 months. Phase I control patients (n = 70) were assessed again at month 45. Measures used were number and duration of in-patient admissions, independent ratings of clinical and social function, and patients' and relatives' satisfaction. The slim clinical and social gains from home-based v. out-/in-patient care during Phase I were largely lost in Phase II. Duration of crisis admissions increased from Phase I to Phase II in both DLPII and DLP-control patients. During Phase II, patients' and relatives' satisfaction remained greater for home-based than out-/in-patient care patients. At 45 months, compared with the Phase I controls, DLPII patients and relatives were more satisfied with care. Such satisfaction was independent of clinical/social gains. The loss of Phase I gains were perhaps due to attenuation of home-based care quality and to benefits of Phase I home-based care lingering into Phase II in DLP-controls. The Phase II home-based care team suffered from low morale.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 1998