Assessing the knowledge of diabetes management within psychiatric crisis resolution teams

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Demetris Mariannis ◽  
Sasha Tulsyan ◽  
Fahimul Amin ◽  
Bianca Dion Luu ◽  
Tracy Barry ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Hasselberg ◽  
K. H. Holgersen ◽  
G. M. Uverud ◽  
J. Siqveland ◽  
B. Lloyd-Evans ◽  
...  

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.


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.


2007 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Tyrer

SummaryAims – Specialist interventions in community psychiatry for severe mental illness are expanding and their place needs to be re-examined. Methods – Recent literature is reviewed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of specialist teams. Results – Good community mental health services reduce drop out from care, prevent suicide and unnatural deaths, and reduce admission to hospital. Most of these features have been also demonstrated by assertive community outreach and crisis resolution teams when good community services are not available. In well established community services assertive community teams do not reduce admission but both practitioners and patients prefer this service to other approaches and it leads to better engagement. Crisis resolution teams appear to be more successful than assertive community teams in preventing admission to hospital, although head- to-head comparisons have not yet been made. All specialist teams have the potential of fragmenting services and thereby reducing continuity of care. Conclusions – The assets of improved engagement and greater satisfaction with assertive, crisis resolution and home treatment teams are clear from recent evidence, but to improve integration of services they are probably best incorporated into community mental health services rather than standing alone.Declaration of Interest: The author has been the sole consultant in two assertive outreach teams since 1994 and might there- fore be expected to be in favour of this genre of service. He has received grants for evaluation of different services models from the Department of Health (UK) and the Medical Research Council (UK).


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Hasselberg ◽  
Rolf W Gråwe ◽  
Sonia Johnson ◽  
Torleif Ruud

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Hasselberg ◽  
Rolf W Gråwe ◽  
Sonia Johnson ◽  
Jūratė Šaltytė-Benth ◽  
Torleif Ruud

2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bengt Karlsson ◽  
Marit Borg ◽  
Hesook Suzie Kim

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 232-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca A. Carpenter ◽  
Jara Falkenburg ◽  
Thomas P. White ◽  
Derek K. Tracy

Aims and methodCrisis resolution and home treatment teams (variously abbreviated to CRTs, CRHTTs, HTTs) were introduced to reduce the number and duration of in-patient admissions and better manage individuals in crisis. Despite their ubiquity, their evidence base is challengeable. This systematic review explored whether CRTs: (a) affected voluntary and compulsory admissions; (b) treat particular patient groups; (c) are cost-effective; and (d) provide care patients value.ResultsCrisis resolution teams appear effective in reducing admissions, although data are mixed and other factors have also influenced this. Compulsory admissions may have increased, but evidence that CRTs are causally related is inconclusive. There are few clinical differences between ‘gate-kept’ patients admitted and those not. Crisis resolution teams are cheaper than in-patient care and, overall, patients are satisfied with CRT care.Clinical implicationsHigh-quality evidence for CRTs is scarce, although they appear to contribute to reducing admissions. Patient-relevant psychosocial and longitudinal outcomes are under-explored.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document