title: Identifying the ultra-high risk (prodromal) population: evaluation of training workshops with mental health services.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Recent years have witnessed widespread interest in the early phase of psychotic disorders. The most widely used approach to identify individuals in the prodromal phase is the ultra-high risk (UHR) approach, which combines known trait and state risk factors for psychotic disorder. The Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation Clinic introduced the Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental States (CAARMS) in order to assess UHR status. A training DVD and manual in the use of the CAARMS was recently developed in order to assist with UHR identification. The current paper reports the outcome of a series of training workshops with mental health professionals based around this DVD. The research aim was to investigate whether the training workshops assisted mental health professionals in their confidence and ability to accurately identify UHR cases and distinguish these from non-UHR and first-episode psychosis (FEP) cases.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 137 mental health workers participated in the training sessions across eight training sites. The training sessions consisted of four modules: theoretical background; rating written vignettes for UHR, non-UHR or FEP status; viewing and discussing the CAARMS Training DVD; and re-rating matched written vignettes for UHR, non-UHR or FEP status.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Participants' confidence in identifying UHR cases and in using the CAARMS increased as a result of the workshop. Participants' ability to correctly identify UHR-positive cases did not improve as a result of the workshop. This may have been the result of a ceiling effect due to the baseline ability to identify UHR-positive cases being high. But there was a trend for participants' ability to correctly identify UHR-negative cases to improve as a result of the workshop.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  UHR training workshops are a valuable means of increasing mental health workers' confidence in identifying UHR patients. Future UHR training programmes with experienced mental health professionals should pay particular attention to the correct identification of UHR-negative cases.
authors.affiliation: ORYGEN Research Centre, Parkville, Vic., Australia. barnaby.nelson@mh.org.au
authors.forename: Barnaby
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Nelson
authors.forename: Magenta B
authors.initials: MB
authors.lastname: Simmons
authors.forename: Alison R
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Yung
authors.forename: Joe A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Buckby
authors.forename: Lisa
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: O'Dwyer
authors.forename: Shona M
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: Francey
authors.forename: Steven
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Leicester
authors.forename: Swagata
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Bapat
authors.forename: Patrick D
authors.initials: PD
authors.lastname: McGorry
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D004493:Education; D005260:Female; D006282:Health Personnel / Q000193:education*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods; D008605:Mental Health Services; D011159:Population Surveillance; D015995:Prevalence; D011618:Psychotic Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000628:therapy; D012307:Risk Factors; D013663:Teaching / Q000379:methods*; D000078329:Workforce