Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T11:11:41.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Author's reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Swaran Singh
Swaran Singh*
Affiliation:
Health Sciences Research Institute, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Email: S.P.Singh@warwick.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Columns
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 197 , Issue 5 , November 2010, pp. 415 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2010 

Professor Burns rightly reminds us that, unlike specialist teams, community mental health teams (CMHTs) have never had strong advocates and have not been actively researched. His point about the wide variation in CMHT outcomes as comparators in trials illustrates this: lacking a clear role, responsibilities and remit, CMHTs have struggled to delineate what they do well, shed what they do not, and ensure that their staff keep up with the changing evidence base for therapeutic interventions. Specialist teams do not do anything special which is out of CMHT reach. Specialist teams are simply better placed to engage patients and deliver high-quality interventions because of the specialist focus that allows clinicians to develop and hone specialist skills. This is the history of improvements in medicine, where specialisation is both an outcome of academic advance and a vehicle for service improvement. It is in the nature of generic teams to deliver generic care; there is no evidence that pouring extra resources into CMHTs would turn them into specialist equivalents.

The latest National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines on schizophrenia reviewed the clinical and cost-effectiveness of CMHTs and concluded:

‘Despite the fact that CMHTs remain the mainstay of community mental healthcare, there is surprisingly little evidence to show that they are an effective way of organising services. As such, evidence for or against the effectiveness of CMHTs in the management of schizophrenia is insufficient to make any evidence-based recommendations’ (p. 336). 1

The health economic review adds:

‘The available evidence on health economics is unclear. The non-significant differences between standard care and CMHTs, and between pre-intervention period and intervention period, suggest that CMHTs provide no real cost savings or extra costs’ (p. 337). 1

Reluctant as I am to disagree with an esteemed colleague, there is little evidence to support the superiority of CMHTs over specialised teams.

Our understanding of mental disorders and the complexity of treatment has moved on considerably from the time when CMHTs were originally established. In this rapidly changing world, it is difficult to see how generic teams can deliver all the recommendations of the 22 NICE guidelines in mental health. The ‘conflict’ between generalism and specialism is not restricted to psychiatry, it is writ large in the historical development of 20th-century medicine. Reference Huddle, Centor and Heudebert2 In the 21st century, CMHTs need to evolve and innovate and carve out a niche where the generalist can flourish, either in primary care or in high-quality, rapid assessment teams that complement specialist services, rather than compete with them.

Footnotes

Edited by Kiriakos Xenitidis and Colin Campbell

References

1 National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. Core Interventions in the Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Primary and Secondary Care (Update). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009.Google Scholar
2 Huddle, TS, Centor, R, Heudebert, GR. American internal medicine in the 21st century: can an Oslerian generalism survive? J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18: 764–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

This journal is not currently accepting new eletters.

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.