Psychotic disorders are severe mental health conditions frequently associated with long-term disability, reduced quality of life and premature mortality. Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services aim to provide timely, comprehensive packages of care for people with psychotic disorders. However, it is not clear which components of EIP services contribute most to the improved outcomes they achieve.

We aimed to identify associations between specific components of EIP care and clinically significant outcomes for individuals treated for early psychosis in England.

This national retrospective cohort study of 14 874 EIP individuals examined associations between 12 components of EIP care and outcomes over a 3-year follow-up period, by linking data from the National Clinical Audit of Psychosis (NCAP) to routine health outcome data held by NHS England. The primary outcome was time to relapse, defined as psychiatric inpatient admission or referral to a crisis resolution (home treatment) team. Secondary outcomes included duration of admissions, detention under the Mental Health Act, emergency department and general hospital attendances and mortality. We conducted multilevel regression analyses incorporating demographic and service-level covariates.

Smaller care coordinator case-loads and the use of clozapine for eligible people were associated with reduced relapse risk. Physical health interventions were associated with reductions in mortality risk. Other components, such as cognitive–behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp), showed associations with improvements in secondary outcomes.

Smaller case-loads should be prioritised and protected in EIP service design and delivery. Initiatives to improve the uptake of clozapine should be integrated into EIP care. Other components, such as CBTp and physical health interventions, may have specific benefits for those eligible. These findings highlight impactful components of care and should guide resource allocation to optimise EIP service delivery.

An Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) service offers treatment in the community to people with a first episode of psychosis. EIP is meant to be given for three years; after this time, those who are well are discharged to their GP, while those with ongoing symptoms and care needs are transferred to a general community mental health team. People can become unwell at this time of change and might benefit from longer treatment with EIP. We also know that some people who are well could possibly have been discharged back to their GP earlier. The EXTEND programme aims to develop a more tailored approach to EIP services based on the needs of each individual and understand the health, social, and cost-benefits of this approach.

This qualitative study sits within a larger programme of work. Ethics and HRA approvals gained. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health care professionals from primary and specialist care, managers and commissioners, to understand why and how decisions about duration of EIP care are made. Interviews have been transcribed and thematic analysis using principles of constant comparison is being conducted. Patient and public involvement is key to all stages of the study.

Five interviews with General Practitioners and twelve interviews with EIP healthcare professionals, managers and commissioners have been conducted. Initial analysis suggests that access to EIP services can be challenging. Initial engagement is needed before therapy can begin. Decisions about duration of care can depend upon availability of access to Community Mental Health teams. Discharge planning rarely involves communication between primary and specialist care, and this can be a difficult transition, particularly when discharge is back to primary care. The pathway back into mental health care following discharge can be difficult. Trusting relationships between service users and EIP professionals are key to the success of EIP care. Healthcare professionals would value - and in some cases are given - flexibility to extend EIP care beyond 3 years.

We have developed a model to illustrate the patient journey through the EIP service which will be presented for the first time at the conference.

This research provides a framework to understand decision-making around duration of care, discharge planning and practices, and post-discharge support for EIP service users. The next phase of the study will be interviews with service users and carers to explore their experiences of EIP services, duration of care and discharge planning.

Better indicators of prognosis are needed to personalise post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatments.

We aimed to evaluate early symptom reduction as a predictor of better outcome and examine predictors of early response.

Patients with PTSD (N = 134) received sertraline or prolonged exposure in a randomised trial. Early response was defined as 20% PTSD symptom reduction by session two and good end-state functioning defined as non-clinical levels of PTSD, depression and anxiety.

Early response rates were similar in prolonged exposure and sertraline (40 and 42%), but in sertraline only, early responders were four times more likely to achieve good end-state functioning at post-treatment (Number Needed to Treat = 1.8, 95% CI 1.28–3.00) and final follow-up (Number Needed to Treat = 3.1, 95% CI 1.68–16.71). Better outcome expectations of sertraline also predicted higher likelihood of early response.

Higher expectancy of sertraline coupled with early response may produce a cascade-like effect for optimal conditions for long-term symptom reduction. Therefore, assessing expectations and providing clear treatment rationales may optimise sertraline effects.

None.