Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
In 1986, The New York State Commission on the Quality of Care for the
Mentally Disabled found that 50% of the patients admitted for psychiatric care
across New York State also had alcohol and substance abuse that required
treatment.1 In 1987 the Alcohol Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration
(ADAMHA) reported that at least 50% of the 1.5 to 2 million Americans with
severe mental illness abuse illicit drugs or alcohol as compared to 15% of the
general population.2 Other studies in 1993 have shown that 90% of prisoners with
a mental disorder have co-occurring substance disorders,3 and half of the
homeless population with a mental illness also have substance disorders.4 Dually-
diagnosed clients have been characterized as systems misfits with poor outcome,
more relapses, more acting out behavior, and more likelihood of being homeless.5
Despite the documented high prevalence of co-existing mental illness and
substance disorders, and the serious consequences, facilities that provide
comprehensive services for dual/multiple disorders are limited as compared to
services for singular disorders.
The project the authors have initiated addresses each of the three underlying
issues outlined above. In this article the authors will discuss a model of program
development that has integrated the mental health and substance abuse systems in
the Jackson-Hillsdale counties of Michigan. The authors will review program and
staff development accomplished through an interagency process of cross-training
and program implementation.7,8 This has resulted in comprehensive services at
multiple sites within the mental health and substance abuse service delivery
systems. This will be followed by an overview of a non-confrontational treatment
model7 and accompanying philosophy developed specifically for persons who
have dual disorders.
Increasingly, the community mental health staff who performed the general
hospital emergency room assessments were seeing intoxicated individuals with
suicidal/homicidal ideation. Generally the individuals were held in the emergency
room. Once blood alcohol levels were reduced, the community mental health staff
would re-assess and find no severe mental illness or behaviors threatening to self
or others that justified psychiatric inpatient admissions. From April, 1990 to
April, 1991 forty-seven of fifty-five emergency room assessments revealed no
necessity for psychiatric inpatient care based upon admission criteria in the
Michigan Mental Health Code. Twelve of these individuals were recidivists to the
emergency room, and fifteen were admitted to short term (2-3 day) psychiatric
inpatient care for observation despite lack of an appropriate psychiatric diagnosis.
These same fifteen clients were rejected for substance abuse residential treatment
and their recidivism led them to become known as "revolving door" consumers.
In the absence of acute symptoms of severe mental illness, and with a stabilized
medical condition, clients were discharged from the emergency room. This
situation posed a fear and major concern for both treatment systems and the
general hospital.
The substance abuse agency, the community mental health agency and the general
hospital were concerned about service delivery gaps and liability relative to
abandonment issues. In addition, the parties recognized the need to connect
individuals with ongoing treatment as soon as possible during the crisis periods
since it was believed that effecting change is easier during such periods.
In 1992, a separate and independent report about the general hospital yielded the
following data.11 From October 1991 to September 1992, seven psychiatrists
ordered 87 alcohol and drug consults on a total of 79 patients (eight consults were
repeated on the same patients during separate episodes). There were 82 consults
on the inpatient mental health units, two consults were main hospital patients and
three were outpatient mental health patients. This number comprises 53 males
(60.9%) and 34 females (38.6%). The substance disorder diagnosis was
confirmed through a series of screening tests and a face to face interview. Seventy
six of the 79 patients assessed (or 96.2%) met the criteria for alcohol and/or drug
dependence. This number constitutes only 8.3% of the total hospital admissions
for that year. The report concluded that "dual diagnosis" case finding would be
enhanced by alcohol and drug screening tests during the psychiatric evaluation
period.11
Since the state laws separating the agencies would not be modified in a timely
fashion, the directors decided jointly to focus on a continuum of care for both
groups at risk in the two systems; and while crisis clients were an immediate
problem, it was apparent that inpatient care and emergency room care were the
most expensive services to provide, the least effective method for long term
treatment, and the most utilized by these groups.
The system was designed to meet the needs of clients in each phase of recovery,
to include interventions that addressed various levels of severity and disability
and various levels of motivation and readiness.7 This treatment model7,12 would
be adopted by each of the participating program sites. The treatment model
includes non-judgmental acceptance of symptoms of dual or multiple disorders
upon admission to treatment, and a process of intervention designed to assist each
client along a continuum of progress. Screening for the symptoms of dual
disorders was implemented at each intake to assure that clients were identified.
Continuity was to occur across programs as well as over time. The range of
program elements included acute stabilization, engagement, education,
comprehensive assessment, ongoing stabilization and rehabilitation, and relapse
prevention. A service delivery system where each program site included
integrated services for dual disorders was envisioned. The interventions would
compliment each program's parameters including length of stay, primary service
(i.e. acute stabilization), and model of service. A dual disorders "track" including
engagement, individual and/or group interventions, and preparation for clients to
participate in dual disorder services at the next service juncture, would be
included at each program site. Clients would have the opportunity to utilize
components of each system as needed. For example, a client with severe mental
illness who is approaching acute crisis due to a substance disorder could receive
treatment at a residential substance abuse program with attention to
detoxification, rather than deteriorate into an acute psychiatric condition and be
referred for inpatient psychiatric care. A person with a depressive disorder and
alcoholism could attend a mental health clinic and participate in dual diagnosis
group treatment.
The administrators and the consultant agreed to include each program site
providing services to adult and adolescent clients within the community mental
health system, each program site providing services to adult clients within the
substance abuse system, and the psychiatric unit at the general hospital. Site visits
and management meetings followed the selection of the program sites. These
meetings included the specifics of program implementation at each site including
staff development.
Following the introductory seminar there were more volunteers than training
slots. The on-going training commenced with a group of eighteen participants,
representing twelve program sites. The mental health sites included: two
outpatient clinics; a day treatment program; a psychosocial rehabilitation
clubhouse, modeled after Fountain House14; outpatient adolescent services; two
crisis residences; two assertive community treatment (ACT) teams15 ; and an
inpatient acute psychiatric care unit. Substance abuse sites included: residential
inpatient substance abuse treatment; substance abuse partial day treatment;
substance abuse intensive day treatment; and two outpatient substance abuse
clinics.
Staff who participated were to become the resource person (versus expert) to their
program team. As a result of this project, each site has developed a dual diagnosis
program.
Staff Selection
Program development is optimal when staff "self elect" to participate in this
process of program development. Staff who are motivated to enhance their
education, training and clinical experience participate enthusiastically.
Participants are expected to learn about disorders they are unfamiliar with, and to
educate their clients about these disorders. At times teaching and learning may be
simultaneous. Providers are not expected to be experts in both fields. The
treatment model includes an exploratory approach to learning with and from the
clients about dual disorders. It is important for staff to understand that they are
"agents of change" within their program and the larger system. A benefit of inter-
agency training is that often it serves as a professional support group.
For purposes of staff development, these definitions lend clarity to the differing
profiles of MIDAA populations found across the systems. They are referred to
when considering special service needs across the two systems and when
developing specific treatment plans.
Each agency implemented a "screening" form that was applicable either to mental
health or substance abuse clients. Screening would lead to the appropriate follow
up for treatment. The modified version of the CAGE18 questionnaire, the dual
diagnosis CAGE13 (D.D. CAGE) was used at all intakes for mental health clients,
and the MISF (mental illness screening form)13 was used at all intakes for
substance abuse clients. Figure 1 outlines the Sciacca treatment model7 and
sequence of related MIDAA program forms.
Figure 1
Sciacca Treatment Model for Dual Diagnosis (MIDAA)
Source: Sciacca.7
Note: MIDAA = Mental Illness, Drug Addiction, and Alcoholism; DD CAGE =
Dual Diagnosis CAGE Questionnaire; MISF = Mental Illness Screening Form.
Each training meeting included an educational topic. Topics were selected and
reviewed by the participants. Participants read literature, prepared and presented
MIDAA case reviews, and administered and presented comprehensive
assessments. Participants continually updated the status of program
implementation at their program site.
Program managers were asked to provide staff with four hours per week to
provide MIDAA services and to participate in training. The weekly time allotted
was averaged from monthly estimates.
The treatment groups were designed to include from two to eight members at any
time, and to incorporate a non-confrontational, non-sequential approach.
Treatment groups process all illnesses and related experiences (both mental
illness, substance abuse and interaction effects). Clients were exposed to
educational materials as they gradually increased their recognition of symptoms.
As trust developed, they progressed along the readiness criteria to ultimately
participate as allies in their own treatment7 and recovery. Clients were encouraged
to remain on necessary medications, and for the most part continue to attend the
program(s) where they were most comfortable. Clients who refused to meet with
the liaison/staffer for the pre-group interview continued to engage with the
primary provider who proceeded to educate the client about dual disorders in a
non-threatening, non-confrontational manner, using statements of concern, until
there was movement along the continuum of engagement.
Specific education about both mental illness and substance abuse disorders is
essential. The interaction effects of dual disorders, and the interactions between
illicit substances and prescribed medications are unique topics and areas of
exploration. Participants are taught to dispel moral judgmental concepts about
addictive disorders and stigmas about mental illness. Instead, they learn the true
underlying factors of these illnesses and recovery from them. This assists clients
to move from demoralization, shame and guilt to hope for rehabilitation, recovery
and stability. Group members are encouraged to provide peer support and to share
experiences and knowledge in a non-threatening, non-judgmental environment.
Candidness is valued as the only real possibility for genuine learning and
understanding to occur. There is no time limit (except for those imposed by
program parameters) for successfully engaging the client in the group process as
well as assisting the client to progress along the continuum from denial to
recovery (see figure 1). Once the client is an ally in the treatment process (phase
3), various treatment interventions may be recommended. Other adjunct supports
may be included at any point along the continuum of recovery including twelve
step programs, and other supportive environments. Clients are assisted to adjust to
adjunct programs during their participation in MIDAA groups. Each disorder is
viewed as a potentially relapsing illness. Interrupted treatment or relapse is
viewed as a learning opportunity, and an aspect of the illness, it is not viewed as
failure. Involvement of family members is encouraged.19
This model was presented with the understanding that clients may move from one
program to another or participate in more than one program at any given time.
The continuum was therefore flexible.
Cross-Training and Program Development Outcome
In the summer of 1994, at the close of the ten-month training segment the
following outcome was demonstrated.
In response to the question, "How have MIDAA groups benefitted the clients in
your program?" Each of the 11 mental health liaison/staffers responded positively
with the following client benefits repeated across responses: learning, insight,
open expression, decreased shame, reduced denial, reduced substance abuse,
abstinence, on-site comprehensive treatment, and increased resources and
socialization. Three of four positive substance abuse responses included: client
inclusion in treatment; comprehensive treatment; open expression; and reduced
shame and stigma.
At the close of the ten month training seventy-nine clients were receiving dual
diagnosis treatment across the program sites. Many of the mental health clients
had never participated in substance abuse treatment prior to this dual diagnosis
treatment, and others never in a sustained way. Clients who were regularly found
in the substance abuse system participated in groups that addressed both
substance abuse and mental health. An increase in participation of MICAA clients
was found in the substance abuse system. Monthly group statistics13 show that
numerous clients have sustained their participation in dual diagnosis treatment in
an on-going way within programs and across programs. Empirical case reviews
and preliminary progress data show progress has been achieved in each of the
areas on the progress reviews13 by various clients. Quality of care was remarkably
enhanced within programs and through the availability of services in the
alternative systems. The monthly training meetings provided an understanding of
the services provided in each program. This assisted in the development of service
plans that were more closely attuned to a client's treatment needs at specific
points in his or her recovery. As a result, the potential for successful completion
of a particular program was greatly improved. The second phase of this project
will include the compilation of client progress outcome data.
The results of this project clearly demonstrates the ability for both mental health
and substance abuse services systems to combine their resources for the benefit of
dually diagnosed clients. Agencies that are alienated from one another can bridge
these gaps through cooperation, education and training. The commitment of the
administrators from both systems in the Michigan project demonstrate this. The
same commitment is possible by other administrators who wish to correct the
condition of "systems misfits" to one of comprehensive services for dual disorders
within and/or across systems and services.
Staff who are motivated to learn and to provide new program initiatives are highly
effective as providers of treatment for dual disorders. Didactic and experiential
training can provide the understanding necessary for employing new models of
intervention. Differences in philosophy and methodology across systems are
narrowed as the service needs of the dually diagnosed client are better understood.
An accepting stance of "inclusion" can replace criterion for exclusion.
Summary
Mental health providers who once believed they could be of no value to a person
with a substance disorder now diligently extend every resource to engage the
dually diagnosed client into treatment. Substance abuse providers who once
avoided clients with a severe mental illness now provide services for these clients
in both systems. In effect, the Jackson-Hillsdale project has demonstrated that
dually diagnosed clients who were "no one's" clients in the initial revue of the
issues, have now become "everyone's" clients as a result of this project. This
process is replicable where there is administrative support, motivated direct care
providers, the employment of a realistic "inclusive" treatment model and service
delivery, and the provision of education and training.
REFERENCES
2. Ridgely MS, Osher FC, Talbott JA: Chronic mentally ill young adults
with substance abuse problems: treatment and training issues. Baltimore
Mental Health Policy Studies, University of Maryland School of
Medicine,1987.
9. Mental health code, Act 258 of the public act of 1974. Public Laws
Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Michigan, Michigan Compiled
Laws.
10. Mental health code, Act 358 of the public act of 1974. Public Laws
Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Michigan, Michigan, Compiled
Laws.
12. Sciacca K: New initiatives in the treatment of the chronic patient with
alcohol substance use problems.TIE Lines,1987,pp5-6.
19. Sciacca K, Hatfield AB: The family and the dually diagnosed patient.
Double Jeopardy Chronic Mental Illness and Substance Disorders,
Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995, Chapt.12, pp.193-209. 32
This complete article is included in a packet of articles that is available
from Kathleen Sciacca through regular mail. To order the packet of
articles send $10.00 payable in US dollars to: Kathleen Sciacca, 299
Riverside Drive, New York N.Y. 10025. Include your complete mailing
address. Outside of USA include $7.00 shipping and $7.50 check
processing fee payable in US dollars.