Frequency and predictors of adverse events. PRiSM psychosis study 3

Sonia Johnson, Morven Leese, Liz Brooks, Paul Clarkson, Hilary Guite, Graham Thornicroft, Frank Holloway, Til Wykes

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


    Background: Community care has been criticised as a hazardous policy associated with high rates of adverse events. There is little research evidence as to the truth of this claim. Method: Best available evidence from public records, interviews, case notes, keyworkers and general practitioners was assembled to establish: (a) which of the 514 subjects initially identified as having psychotic illnesses had died during an average follow- up of 4.9 years; (b) care currently received by all 286 subjects originally selected for interview; and (c) rates of major adverse events and of admission for these 286 individuals. Results: Twenty-eight natural and II unnatural deaths had occurred. Among subjects still living at the end of the follow-up, 84% were in contact with specialist mental health services and 11% only with primary care services. Rates of serious violence, imprisonment and homelessness were relatively low. Forty-one per cent had been admitted at least once during a mean follow-up of 3.2 years and 20% at least once under the Mental Health Act. After adjustment, there were no significant differences between standard and intensive care sectors. Conclusions: Rates of adverse events and 'slipping through the net' are relatively low among individuals receiving community-based services, whether intensive or standard care.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)376-384
    Number of pages8
    JournalBritish Journal of Psychiatry
    Publication statusPublished - Nov 1998


    Dive into the research topics of 'Frequency and predictors of adverse events. PRiSM psychosis study 3'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this