Abstract

AimsStudies show the prevalence of Autism Spectrum Conditions in Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) populations is 3.6-3.7%, compared to approximately 1-1.5% in the general population. The CAARMS (Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental States) is a national tool used by EIP services as a screening tool to bring patients into services and stratify their symptoms to determine what pathway may be most appropriate (First Episode Psychosis pathway (FEP) or At Risk Mental State pathway (ARMS)). As far as we are aware the CAARMS has not been validated in an autistic population. It is our view that several of the questions in the CAARMS may be interpreted differently by people with autism, thus affecting the scores. The aim of this evaluation was to identify whether CAARMS scores differ between patients diagnosed with autism and matched controls in York EIP.MethodFrom their mental health records, we identified all patients in the service with a diagnosis of autism. We then compared the CAARMS scores, at the time of referral, to those of age matched controls (matched by being in the age range 16-30) without an autism diagnosis, using continuous sampling by date of referral.Result14 patients in the service had a diagnosis of autism and had completed a CAARMS. CAARMS domains are all scored between 0 and 6 (indicating increasing severity or frequency). Compared to the age matched controls, autistic patients had a higher mean difference in their scores for ‘Non-Bizarre Ideas’ (mean difference of 0.86 for severity and 0.57 for frequency) and ‘Disorganised Speech’ (mean difference of 0.28 for severity and 0.57 for frequency). These results did not reach statistical significance which was unsurprising given the sample size. The gender split between groups was similar.ConclusionOur evaluation suggests a difference in CAARMS scores between patients in our service with a diagnosis of autism and those without. A larger study would be needed to confirm a statistically significant difference and multicentre results would be needed as evidence of generalisability. However, if such a difference were confirmed it might question the validity of CAARMS in autistic patients or suggest that modifications, perhaps in the form of reasonable adjustments to the questions or scoring, were needed to increase the validity in this population. We would suggest that spending extra time checking the patient has understood the intended meaning of the questions in the CAARMS may increase validity, particularly in the ‘Non-Bizarre Ideas’ domain.

Highlights

  • Our trends demonstrate that people with substance misuse, emotionally unstable personality disorder and forensic history are more likely to be readmitted to an adult mental health inpatient unit

  • To assess whether direct access to a 45 minute screen appointment in a Consultant Psychiatric clinic, based in General Practice, affects; the number of contacts patients have with secondary care pre and post being seen; whether the General Practitioner (GP) would have referred to secondary services if the clinic had not been in operation; the GPs’ views on how helpful the clinic was in understanding the patients’ problems and managing the problems outside of secondary care

  • A Consultant Psychiatrist in Leeds offered bespoke 45 minute screening appointment clinics in three sister GP practices, accepting direct referrals from GPs without requiring referrals to the local Community Mental Health Team (CMHT). This model was created to reduce the number of patients moving repeatedly between GP and secondary mental health services as this was leading to patient dissatisfaction and increased GP and CMHT workloads

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Our trends demonstrate that people with substance misuse, emotionally unstable personality disorder and forensic history are more likely to be readmitted to an adult mental health inpatient unit. Evaluation of a novel consultant psychiatric clinic in general practices and its effects on secondary mental health contact and the general practitioners’ perspectives

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.