Search

Background: Mental health acute and crisis care consumes a large share of mental health budgets internationally but is often experienced as unsatisfactory and difficult to access. As a result, there is an increasing move towards developing innovative community crisis services, to improve patient experience and relieve pressure on inpatient and emergency services. This study aims to understand what helps and hinders the implementation of innovative mental health crisis care projects in England. Methods: Using a qualitative approach, 18 interviews were conducted with crisis care service managers exploring their experiences and views of the development and implementation of their service developed with support from an English national capital funding programme. A framework analysis was conducted informed by implementation science. Results: Key facilitators to implementation of innovative crisis services included bottom-up development, service user involvement, strong collaborative working, and leadership and management buy-in. Key barriers that affected the projects implementation included the complexities of crisis care, workforce challenges and resourcing issues. Conclusion: There is a recognised need to improve, update, and innovate current crisis care offers. Results from this study suggest that a range of models can help address the heterogenous needs of local populations and that new approaches can be implemented where they utilise a whole-systems approach, involving service users and relevant professional stakeholders beyond mental health services in planning and developing the service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inpatient psychiatric care is unpopular and expensive, and development and evaluation of alternatives is a long-standing policy and research priority around the world. In England, the three main models documented over the past fifty years (teams offering crisis assessment and treatment at home; acute day units; and residential crisis services in the community) have recently been augmented by several new service models. These are intended to enhance choice and flexibility within catchment area acute care systems, but remain largely undocumented in the research literature. We therefore aimed to describe the types and distribution of crisis care models across England through a national survey. Methods: We carried out comprehensive mapping of crisis resolution teams (CRTs) using previous surveys, websites and multiple official data sources. Managers of CRTs were invited to participate as key informants who were familiar with the provision and organisation of crisis care services within their catchment area. The survey could be completed online or via telephone interview with a researcher, and elicited details about types of crisis care delivered in the local catchment area. Results: We mapped a total of 200 adult CRTs and completed the survey with 184 (92%). Of the 200 mapped adult CRTs, there was a local (i.e., within the adult CRT catchment area) children and young persons CRT for 84 (42%), and an older adults CRT for 73 (37%). While all but one health region in England provided CRTs for working age adults, there was high variability regarding provision of all other community crisis service models and system configurations. Crisis cafes, street triage teams and separate crisis assessment services have all proliferated since a similar survey in 2016, while provision of acute day units has reduced. Conclusions: The composition of catchment area crisis systems varies greatly across England and popularity of models seems unrelated to strength of evidence. A group of emerging crisis care models with varying functions within service systems are increasingly prevalent: they have potential to offer greater choice and flexibility in managing crises, but an evidence base regarding impact on service user experiences and outcomes is yet to be established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]