scholarly journals The CORE service improvement programme for mental health crisis resolution teams: results from a cluster-randomised trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 216 (6) ◽  
pp. 314-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brynmor Lloyd-Evans ◽  
David Osborn ◽  
Louise Marston ◽  
Danielle Lamb ◽  
Gareth Ambler ◽  
...  

BackgroundCrisis resolution teams (CRTs) offer brief, intensive home treatment for people experiencing mental health crisis. CRT implementation is highly variable; positive trial outcomes have not been reproduced in scaled-up CRT care.AimsTo evaluate a 1-year programme to improve CRTs’ model fidelity in a non-masked, cluster-randomised trial (part of the Crisis team Optimisation and RElapse prevention (CORE) research programme, trial registration number: ISRCTN47185233).MethodFifteen CRTs in England received an intervention, informed by the US Implementing Evidence-Based Practice project, involving support from a CRT facilitator, online implementation resources and regular team fidelity reviews. Ten control CRTs received no additional support. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction, measured by the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8), completed by 15 patients per team at CRT discharge (n = 375). Secondary outcomes: CRT model fidelity, continuity of care, staff well-being, in-patient admissions and bed use and CRT readmissions were also evaluated.ResultsAll CRTs were retained in the trial. Median follow-up CSQ-8 score was 28 in each group: the adjusted average in the intervention group was higher than in the control group by 0.97 (95% CI −1.02 to 2.97) but this was not significant (P = 0.34). There were fewer in-patient admissions, lower in-patient bed use and better staff psychological health in intervention teams. Model fidelity rose in most intervention teams and was significantly higher than in control teams at follow-up. There were no significant effects for other outcomes.ConclusionsThe CRT service improvement programme did not achieve its primary aim of improving patient satisfaction. It showed some promise in improving CRT model fidelity and reducing acute in-patient admissions.

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 146-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brynmor Lloyd-Evans ◽  
Danielle Lamb ◽  
Joseph Barnby ◽  
Michelle Eskinazi ◽  
Amelia Turner ◽  
...  

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brynmor Lloyd-Evans ◽  
Gary R. Bond ◽  
Torleif Ruud ◽  
Ada Ivanecka ◽  
Richard Gray ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (18) ◽  
pp. 1-122
Author(s):  
David Osborn ◽  
Danielle Lamb ◽  
Alastair Canaway ◽  
Michael Davidson ◽  
Graziella Favarato ◽  
...  

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.


BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l5462
Author(s):  
Rob Cook ◽  
Tara Lamont ◽  
Rosie Martin

The study Peden CJ, Stephens T, Martin G et al. Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 2019;393:2213-21. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (project number 12/5005/10). To read the full NIHR Signal, go to https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/content/signal-000789/national-quality-improvement-programmes-need-time-and-resources-to-have-impact


2014 ◽  
Vol 205 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Craig ◽  
Geoff Shepherd ◽  
Miles Rinaldi ◽  
Jo Smith ◽  
Sarah Carr ◽  
...  

BackgroundIndividual placement and support (IPS) is effective in helping patients return to work but is poorly implemented because of clinical ambivalence and fears of relapse.AimsTo assess whether a motivational intervention (motivational interviewing) directed at clinical staff to address ambivalence about employment improved patients' occupational outcomes.MethodTwo of four early intervention teams that already provided IPS were randomised to receive motivational interviewing training for clinicians, focused on attitudinal barriers to employment. The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register (ISRCTN71943786).ResultsOf 300 eligible participants, 159 consented to the research. Occupational outcomes were obtained for 134 patients (85%) at 12-month follow-up. More patients in the intervention teams than in the IPS-only teams achieved employment by 12 months (29/68 v. 12/66). A random effects logistic regression accounting for clustering by care coordinator, and adjusted for participants' gender, ethnicity, educational and employment history and clinical status scores, confirmed superiority of the intervention (odds ratio = 4.3, 95% CI 1.5–16.6).ConclusionsEmployment outcomes were enhanced by addressing clinicians' ambivalence about their patients returning to work.


2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 369-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maritt Kirst ◽  
Katherine Francombe Pridham ◽  
Renira Narrandes ◽  
Flora Matheson ◽  
Linda Young ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Danielle Lamb ◽  
Thomas Steare ◽  
Louise Marston ◽  
Alastair Canaway ◽  
Sonia Johnson ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document