National implementation of a mental health service model: A survey of Crisis Resolution Teams in England.

In response to pressures on mental health inpatient beds and a perceived 'crisis in acute care', Crisis Resolution Teams (CRTs), acute home treatment services, were implemented nationally in England following the NHS Plan in the year 2000: an unprecedentedly prescriptive policy mandate for three new types of functional community mental health team. We examined the effects of this mandate on implementation of the CRT service model. Two hundred and eighteen CRTs were mapped in England, including services in all 65 mental health administrative regions. Eighty-eight percent (n = 192) of CRT managers in England participated in an online survey. CRT service organization and delivery was highly variable. Nurses were the only professional group employed in all CRT staff teams. Almost no teams adhered fully to government implementation guidance. CRT managers identified several aspects of CRT service delivery as desirable but not routinely provided. A national policy mandate and government guidance and standards have proved insufficient to ensure CRT implementation as planned. Development and testing of resources to support implementation and monitoring of a complex mental health intervention is required.

Crisis resolution and home treatment: stakeholders' views on critical ingredients and implementation in England.

BACKGROUND: Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) can provide effective home-based treatment for acute mental health crises, although critical ingredients of the model have not been clearly identified, and implementation has been inconsistent. In order to inform development of a more highly specified CRT model that meets service users' needs, this study used qualitative methods to investigate stakeholders' experiences and views of CRTs, and what is important in good quality home-based crisis care. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with service users (n = 41), carers (n = 20) and practitioners (CRT staff, managers and referrers; n = 147, 26 focus groups, 9 interviews) in 10 mental health catchment areas in England, and with international CRT developers (n = 11). Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three domains salient to views about optimal care were identified. 1. The organisation of CRT care: Providing a rapid initial responses, and frequent home visits from the same staff were seen as central to good care, particularly by service users and carers. Being accessible, reliable, and having some flexibility were also valued. Negative experiences of some referral pathways, and particularly lack of staff continuity were identified as problematic. 2. The content of CRT work: Emotional support was at the centre of service users' experiences. All stakeholder groups thought CRTs should involve the whole family, and offer a range of interventions. However, carers often feel excluded, and medication is often prioritised over other forms of support. 3. The role of CRTs within the care system: Gate-keeping admissions is seen as a key role for CRTs within the acute care system. Service users and carers report that recovery is quicker compared to in-patient care. Lack of knowledge and misunderstandings about CRTs among referrers are common. Overall, levels of stakeholder agreement about the critical ingredients of good crisis care were high, although aspects of this were not always seen as achievable. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders' views about optimal CRT care suggest that staff continuity, carer involvement, and emotional and practical support should be prioritised in service improvements and more clearly specified CRT models.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of peer support for people with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people with severe mental illness. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane CENTRAL Register, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to July 2013 without restriction by publication status. Randomised trials of non-residential peer support interventions were included. Trial interventions were categorised and analysed separately as: mutual peer support, peer support services, or peer delivered mental health services. Meta-analyses were performed where possible, and studies were assessed for bias and the quality of evidence described. RESULTS: Eighteen trials including 5597 participants were included. These comprised four trials of mutual support programmes, eleven trials of peer support services, and three trials of peer-delivered services. There was substantial variation between trials in participants' characteristics and programme content. Outcomes were incompletely reported; there was high risk of bias. From small numbers of studies in the analyses it was possible to conduct, there was little or no evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on hospitalisation, overall symptoms or satisfaction with services. There was some evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on measures of hope, recovery and empowerment at and beyond the end of the intervention, although this was not consistent within or across different types of peer support. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the promotion and uptake of peer support internationally, there is little evidence from current trials about the effects of peer support for people with severe mental illness. Although there are few positive findings, this review has important implications for policy and practice: current evidence does not support recommendations or mandatory requirements from policy makers for mental health services to provide peer support programmes. Further peer support programmes should be implemented within the context of high quality research projects wherever possible. Deficiencies in the conduct and reporting of existing trials exemplify difficulties in the evaluation of complex interventions.