scholarly journals A comparison of clinical outcomes, service satisfaction, and well-being in people using Acute Day Units and Crisis Resolution Teams: a cohort study in England

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Lamb ◽  
Thomas Steare ◽  
Louise Marston ◽  
Alastair Canaway ◽  
Sonia Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Care Pathway ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Service Users ◽  
Mental Health Crisis ◽  
Crisis Resolution ◽  
Readmission Rates ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Crisis Resolution Teams

AbstractBackgroundFor people in mental health crisis, Acute Day Units (ADUs) provide daily structured sessions and peer support in non-residential settings, often as an addition or alternative to Crisis Resolution Teams (CRTs). There is little recent evidence about outcomes for those using ADUs, particularly in comparison to those receiving CRT care alone.AimsTo investigate readmission rates, satisfaction, and wellbeing outcomes for ADU and CRT service users.MethodsA cohort study comparing readmission to acute mental health care during a six-month period for ADU and CRT participants. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction (CSQ), wellbeing (SWEMWBS), and depression (CES-D).ResultsWe recruited 744 participants (ADU: 431, 58%; CRT 312, 42%) across 4 NHS Trusts/health regions. There was no statistically significant overall difference in readmissions; 21% of ADU participants (versus 23% CRT) were readmitted over 6 months (adjusted HR 0.78, 95%CI 0.54, 1.14). However, readmission results varied substantially by setting. At follow-up, ADU participants had significantly higher Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) scores (2.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 3.5, p<0.001) and wellbeing scores (1.3, 95%CI 0.4 to 2.1, p=0.004), and lower depression scores (−1.7, 95%CI −2.7 to −0.8, p<0.001) than CRT participants.ConclusionsService users who accessed ADUs demonstrated better outcomes for satisfaction, wellbeing, and depression, and no significant differences in risk of readmission compared to those who only used CRTs. Given the positive outcomes for service users, and the fact that ADUs are inconsistently provided across the country, their value and place in the acute care pathway needs further consideration and research.

scholarly journals Acute day units in non-residential settings for people in mental health crisis: the AD-CARE mixed-methods study

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (18) ◽  
pp. 1-122
Author(s):  
David Osborn ◽  
Danielle Lamb ◽  
Alastair Canaway ◽  
Michael Davidson ◽  
Graziella Favarato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Service Users ◽  
Mental Health Crisis ◽  
Work Package ◽  
Crisis Resolution ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Crisis Resolution Teams

Background For people in mental health crisis, acute day units provide daily structured sessions and peer support in non-residential settings as an alternative to crisis resolution teams. Objectives To investigate the provision, effectiveness, intervention acceptability and re-admission rates of acute day units. Design Work package 1 – mapping and national questionnaire survey of acute day units. Work package 2.1 – cohort study comparing outcomes during a 6-month period between acute day unit and crisis resolution team participants. Work package 2.2 – qualitative interviews with staff and service users of acute day units. Work package 3 – a cohort study within the Mental Health Minimum Data Set exploring re-admissions to acute care over 6 months. A patient and public involvement group supported the study throughout. Setting and participants Work package 1 – all non-residential acute day units (NHS and voluntary sector) in England. Work packages 2.1 and 2.2 – four NHS trusts with staff, service users and carers in acute day units and crisis resolution teams. Work package 3 – all individuals using mental health NHS trusts in England. Results Work package 1 – we identified 27 acute day units in 17 out of 58 trusts. Acute day units are typically available on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., providing a wide range of interventions and a multidisciplinary team, including clinicians, and having an average attendance of 5 weeks. Work package 2.1 – we recruited 744 participants (acute day units, n = 431; crisis resolution teams, n = 312). In the primary analysis, 21% of acute day unit participants (vs. 23% of crisis resolution team participants) were re-admitted to acute mental health services over 6 months. There was no statistically significant difference in the fully adjusted model (acute day unit hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.14; p = 0.20), with highly heterogeneous results between trusts. Acute day unit participants had higher satisfaction and well-being scores and lower depression scores than crisis resolution team participants. The health economics analysis found no difference in resource use or cost between the acute day unit and crisis resolution team groups in the fully adjusted analysis. Work package 2.2 – 36 people were interviewed (acute day unit staff, n = 12; service users, n = 21; carers, n = 3). There was an overwhelming consensus that acute day units are highly valued. Service users found the high amount of contact time and staff continuity, peer support and structure provided by acute day units particularly beneficial. Staff also valued providing continuity, building strong therapeutic relationships and providing a variety of flexible, personalised support. Work package 3 – of 231,998 individuals discharged from acute care (crisis resolution team, acute day unit or inpatient ward), 21.4% were re-admitted for acute treatment within 6 months, with women, single people, people of mixed or black ethnicity, those living in more deprived areas and those in the severe psychosis care cluster being more likely to be re-admitted. Little variation in re-admissions was explained at the trust level, or between trusts with and trusts without acute day units (adjusted odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.15). Limitations In work package 1, some of the information is likely to be incomplete as a result of trusts’ self-reporting. There may have been recruitment bias in work packages 2.1 and 2.2. Part of the health economics analysis relied on clinical Health of the Nations Outcome Scale ratings. The Mental Health Minimum Data Set did not contain a variable identifying acute day units, and some covariates had a considerable number of missing data. Conclusions Acute day units are not provided routinely in the NHS but are highly valued by staff and service users, giving better outcomes in terms of satisfaction, well-being and depression than, and no significant differences in risk of re-admission or increased costs from, crisis resolution teams. Future work should investigate wider health and care system structures and the place of acute day units within them; the development of a model of best practice for acute day units; and staff turnover and well-being (including the impacts of these on care). Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Mental health crisis resolution teams and crisis care systems in England: a national survey

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 146-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brynmor Lloyd-Evans ◽  
Danielle Lamb ◽  
Joseph Barnby ◽  
Michelle Eskinazi ◽  
Amelia Turner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Service Improvement ◽  
Mental Health Crisis ◽  
Crisis Resolution ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Crisis Resolution Teams ◽  
Crisis Care

Aims and methodA national survey investigated the implementation of mental health crisis resolution teams (CRTs) in England. CRTs were mapped and team managers completed an online survey.ResultsNinety-five per cent of mapped CRTs (n = 233) completed the survey. Few CRTs adhered fully to national policy guidelines. CRT implementation and local acute care system contexts varied substantially. Access to CRTs for working-age adults appears to have improved, compared with a similar survey in 2012, despite no evidence of higher staffing levels. Specialist CRTs for children and for older adults with dementia have been implemented in some areas but are uncommon.Clinical implicationsA national mandate and policy guidelines have been insufficient to implement CRTs fully as planned. Programmes to support adherence to the CRT model and CRT service improvement are required. Clearer policy guidance is needed on requirements for crisis care for young people and older adults.Declaration of interestNone.

scholarly journals A comparison of clinical outcomes, service satisfaction and well-being in people using acute day units and crisis resolution teams: cohort study in England

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Lamb ◽  
Thomas Steare ◽  
Louise Marston ◽  
Alastair Canaway ◽  
Sonia Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
National Health ◽  
Client Satisfaction ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Crisis Resolution ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Satisfaction Questionnaire ◽  
Crisis Resolution Teams

Background For people in mental health crisis, acute day units (ADUs) provide daily structured sessions and peer support in non-residential settings, often as an addition or alternative to crisis resolution teams (CRTs). There is little recent evidence about outcomes for those using ADUs, particularly compared with those receiving CRT care alone. Aims We aimed to investigate readmission rates, satisfaction and well-being outcomes for people using ADUs and CRTs. Method We conducted a cohort study comparing readmission to acute mental healthcare during a 6-month period for ADU and CRT participants. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire), well-being (Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) and depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale). Results We recruited 744 participants (ADU: n = 431, 58%; CRT: n = 312, 42%) across four National Health Service trusts/health regions. There was no statistically significant overall difference in readmissions: 21% of ADU participants and 23% of CRT participants were readmitted over 6 months (adjusted hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.54–1.14). However, readmission results varied substantially by setting. At follow-up, ADU participants had significantly higher Client Satisfaction Questionnaire scores (2.5, 95% CI 1.4–3.5, P < 0.001) and well-being scores (1.3, 95% CI 0.4–2.1, P = 0.004), and lower depression scores (−1.7, 95% CI −2.7 to −0.8, P < 0.001), than CRT participants. Conclusions Patients who accessed ADUs demonstrated better outcomes for satisfaction, well-being and depression, and no significant differences in risk of readmission, compared with those who only used CRTs. Given the positive outcomes for patients, and the fact that ADUs are inconsistently provided in the National Health Service, their value and place in the acute care pathway needs further consideration and research.

scholarly journals Development of a measure of model fidelity for mental health Crisis Resolution Teams

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brynmor Lloyd-Evans ◽  
Gary R. Bond ◽  
Torleif Ruud ◽  
Ada Ivanecka ◽  
Richard Gray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Crisis ◽  
Crisis Resolution ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Model Fidelity ◽  
Crisis Resolution Teams

scholarly journals Fidelity to an evidence-based model for crisis resolution teams: a cross-sectional multicentre study in Norway

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Hasselberg ◽  
K. H. Holgersen ◽  
G. M. Uverud ◽  
J. Siqveland ◽  
B. Lloyd-Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Crisis Resolution ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
The Core ◽  
Crisis Resolution Teams ◽  
Fidelity Scale ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Evidence Based Model

Abstract Background Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) are specialized multidisciplinary teams intended to provide assessment and short-term outpatient or home treatment as an alternative to hospital admission for people experiencing a mental health crisis. In Norway, CRTs have been established within mental health services throughout the country, but their fidelity to an evidence-based model for CRTs has been unknown. Methods We assessed fidelity to the evidence-based CRT model for 28 CRTs, using the CORE Crisis Resolution Team Fidelity Scale Version 2, a tool developed and first applied in the UK to measure adherence to a model of optimal CRT practice. The assessments were completed by evaluation teams based on written information, interviews, and review of patient records during a one-day visit with each CRT. Results The fidelity scale was applicable for assessing fidelity of Norwegian CRTs to the CRT model. On a scale 1 to 5, the mean fidelity score was low (2.75) and with a moderate variation of fidelity across the teams. The CRTs had highest scores on the content and delivery of care subscale, and lowest on the location and timing of care subscale. Scores were high on items measuring comprehensive assessment, psychological interventions, visit length, service users’ choice of location, and of type of support. However, scores were low on opening hours, gatekeeping acute psychiatric beds, facilitating early hospital discharge, intensity of contact, providing medication, and providing practical support. Conclusions The CORE CRT Fidelity Scale was applicable and relevant to assessment of Norwegian CRTs and may be used to guide further development in clinical practice and research. Lower fidelity and differences in fidelity patterns compared to the UK teams may indicate that Norwegian teams are more focused on early interventions to a broader patient group and less on avoiding acute inpatient admissions for patients with severe mental illness.

P02-08 - Mental health crisis resolution and home treatment teams: a qualitative evaluation

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 626
Author(s):  
B. Ferguson ◽  
H. Middleton ◽  
R. Shaw ◽  
R. Collier ◽  
A. Purser
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Qualitative Evaluation ◽  
Home Treatment ◽  
Mental Health Crisis ◽  
Crisis Resolution ◽  
Health Crisis

scholarly journals Typology of psychiatric emergency services in the United Kingdom: a narrative literature review

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Opeyemi Odejimi ◽  
Dhruba Bagchi ◽  
George Tadros
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Emergency Service ◽  
Psychiatric Emergency ◽  
Service Users ◽  
Mental Health Crisis ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Narrative Literature ◽  
Narrative Literature Review ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background Mental health crisis requiring emergency access to psychiatric service can occur at any time. Psychiatric Emergency Service (PES) is described as one that provides an immediate response to an individual in crisis within the first 24 h. Presently, several types of PESs are available in the United Kingdom (UK) with the aim of providing prompt and effective assessment and management of patients. Therefore, this study aims to provide a detailed narrative literature review of the various types of Psychiatric Emergency Service (PES) currently available in the UK. Method Electronic search of five key databases (MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, AMED and PUBMED) was conducted. Studies were included if it described a mental health service in the UK that provides immediate response in mental health crisis within the first 24 h. Excluded studies did not describe a PES, non-English, and were not conducted in UK. Results Nine types of PESs were found. Amongst the 9 services, more papers described crisis resolution home treatment. Majority of the papers reported services within England than other countries within the UK. Conclusion All types of PESs were described as beneficial, particularly to mental health service users, but not without some shortcomings. There is a need to continue carrying out methodological research that evaluate impact, cost-effectiveness as well as identify methods of optimising the beneficial outcomes of the various types of PESs. This may help inform researchers, policy makers and commissioners, service users and carers, service providers and many more on how to ensure current and future PESs meet the needs as well as aid recovery during crisis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document