Search

Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) provide treatment at home to people experiencing mental health crises, as an alternative to hospital admission. Previous UK research, based on self-report surveys, suggests that a loosely specified model has resulted in wide variations in CRTs' service delivery, organization and outcomes. A fidelity scale (developed through evidence review and stakeholder consensus) provided a means of objectively measuring adherence to a model of good practice for CRTs, via one-day fidelity reviews of UK crisis teams. Reviews included interviews with service users, carers, staff and managers, and examination of data, policies, protocols and anonymized case notes. Of the 75 teams reviewed, 49 (65%) were assessed as being moderate fidelity and the rest as low fidelity, with no team achieving high fidelity. The median score was 122 (range: 73-151; inter-quartile range: 111-132). Teams achieved higher scores on items about structure and organization, for example ease of referral, medication and safety systems, but scored poorly on items about the content of care and interventions. Despite a national mandate to implement the CRT model, there are wide variations in implementation in the UK and no teams in our sample achieved overall high fidelity. This suggests that a mandatory national policy is not in itself sufficient to achieve good quality implementation of a service model. The CRT Fidelity Scale provides a feasible and acceptable means to objectively assess model fidelity in CRTs. There is a need for development and testing of interventions to enhance model fidelity and facilitate improvements to these services., (© 2019 Australian College of Mental Health Nurses Inc.)

Background: High resource expenditure on acute care is a challenge for mental health services aiming to focus on supporting recovery, and relapse after an acute crisis episode is common. Some evidence supports self-management interventions to prevent such relapses, but their effect on readmissions to acute care following a crisis is untested. We tested whether a self-management intervention facilitated by peer support workers could reduce rates of readmission to acute care for people discharged from crisis resolution teams, which provide intensive home treatment following a crisis., Methods: We did a randomised controlled superiority trial recruiting participants from six crisis resolution teams in England. Eligible participants had been on crisis resolution team caseloads for at least a week, and had capacity to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups by an unmasked data manager. Those collecting and analysing data were masked to allocation, but participants were not. Participants in the intervention group were offered up to ten sessions with a peer support worker who supported them in completing a personal recovery workbook, including formulation of personal recovery goals and crisis plans. The control group received the personal recovery workbook by post. The primary outcome was readmission to acute care within 1 year. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 01027104., Findings: 221 participants were assigned to the intervention group versus 220 to the control group; primary outcome data were obtained for 218 versus 216. 64 (29%) of 218 participants in the intervention versus 83 (38%) of 216 in the control group were readmitted to acute care within 1 year (odds ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·43-0·99; p=0·0438). 71 serious adverse events were identified in the trial (29 in the treatment group; 42 in the control group)., Interpretation: Our findings suggest that peer-delivered self-management reduces readmission to acute care, although admission rates were lower than anticipated and confidence intervals were relatively wide. The complexity of the study intervention limits interpretability, but assessment is warranted of whether implementing this intervention in routine settings reduces acute care readmission., Funding: National Institute for Health Research., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) provide assessment and intensive home treatment in a crisis, aiming to offer an alternative for people who would otherwise require a psychiatric inpatient admission. They are available in most areas in England. Despite some evidence for their clinical and cost-effectiveness, recurrent concerns are expressed regarding discontinuity with other services and lack of focus on preventing future relapse and readmission to acute care. Currently evidence on how to prevent readmissions to acute care is limited. Self-management interventions, involving supporting service users in recognising and managing signs of their own illness and in actively planning their recovery, have some supporting evidence, but have not been tested as a means of preventing readmission to acute care in people leaving community crisis care. We thus proposed the current study to test the effectiveness of such an intervention. We selected peer support workers as the preferred staff to deliver such an intervention, as they are well-placed to model and encourage active and autonomous recovery from mental health problems., Methods and Analysis: The CORE (CRT Optimisation and Relapse Prevention) self-management trial compares the effectiveness of a peer-provided self-management intervention for people leaving CRT care, with treatment as usual supplemented by a booklet on self-management. The planned sample is 440 participants, including 40 participants in an internal pilot. The primary outcome measure is whether participants are readmitted to acute care over 1 year of follow-up following entry to the trial. Secondary outcomes include self-rated recovery at 4 and at 18 months following trial entry, measured using the Questionnaire on the Process of Recovery. Analysis will follow an intention to treatment principle. Random effects logistic regression modelling with adjustment for clustering by peer support worker will be used to test the primary hypothesis., Ethics and Dissemination: The CORE self-management trial was approved by the London Camden and Islington Research Ethics Committee (REC ref: 12/LO/0988). A Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee oversee the progress of the study. We will report on the results of the clinical trial, as well as on the characteristics of the participants and their associations with relapse., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 01027104;pre-results stage., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: Heterogeneous brief non-pharmacological interventions and guidelines exist to treat the burgeoning presentations to both emergency department and inpatient settings, for those in a crisis of mental ill-health. We systematically reviewed the literature to create a taxonomy of these brief non-pharmacological interventions, and review their evaluation methods and effectiveness. Method: We conducted a systematic review across Cochrane, CINAHL, DARE, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO databases. Studies meeting quality criteria, using Joanna Briggs Institute tools, were eligible. Interventions were categorised, and outcomes synthesised. Results: Thirty-nine studies were included: 8 randomised controlled trials, 17 quasi-experimental, 11 qualitative studies, and 3 file audits. Taxonomy produced six coherent intervention types: Skills-focussed, Environment-focussed, Special Observation, Psychoeducation, Multicomponent Group and Multicomponent Individual. Despite this, a broad and inconsistent range of outcome measures reflected different outcome priorities and prevented systematic comparison of different types of intervention or meta-analysis. Few brief non-pharmacological interventions had consistent evidential support: sensory modulation rooms consistently improved distress in inpatient settings. Short admissions may reduce suicide attempts and readmission, if accompanied by psychotherapy. Suicide-specific interventions in emergency departments may improve depressive symptoms, but not suicide attempt rates. There was evidence that brief non-pharmacological interventions did not reduce incidence of self-harm on inpatient wards. We found no evidence for frequently used interventions such as no-suicide contracting, special observation or inpatient self-harm interventions. Conclusion: Categorising brief non-pharmacological interventions is feasible, but an evidence base for many is severely limited if not missing. Even when there is evidence, the inconsistency in outcomes often precludes clinicians from making inferences, although some interventions show promise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]