Patient-reported outcome, clinician-reported outcome, and patient satisfaction with treatment by crisis resolution teams: a multicenter pre-post study of outcome and associated factors in Norway.

BACKGROUND: Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) have become a part of mental health services in many high-income countries. Many studies have investigated the impact of CRTs on acute admissions to inpatient units, but very few studies have investigated patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes for CRT service users. Our aims were to study patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes of CRT treatment, how the outcomes were associated with characteristics of the service user and the treatment, and whether outcomes were different across CRTs. METHODS: The study was a pre-post observational multicenter study of 475 patients receiving treatment from 25 CRTs in urban and rural areas in Norway. There was no control group. Outcomes were change in mental health status reported by service users using CORE-10 and by clinicians using HoNOS. Patient satisfaction was measured using CSQ-8 at the end of the treatment. Components of CRT accessibility and interventions were measured by clinicians reporting details on each session with the service user. CRT model fidelity was measured using the CORE CRT Fidelity Scale version 2. We used paired t-tests to analyze outcomes and linear mixed modeling to analyze associations of the outcomes with the characteristics of service users and the treatment provided. Using independent t-tests, we analyzed differences in outcomes and patient satisfaction between two clusters of CRTs with differences in accessibility. RESULTS: The patient-reported outcomes and the clinician-reported outcomes were significantly positive and with a large effect size. Both were significantly positively associated with practical support and medication management and negatively associated with collaboration with mental health inpatient units. Patient satisfaction was high at the end of the treatment. CRTs with higher accessibility had a significantly better clinician-reported outcome, but no significant differences were reported for patient-reported outcomes or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: CRT treatment led to improved symptom status as reported by patients and clinicians, as well as high patient satisfaction. Practical support and medication management were the interventions most strongly associated with positive outcomes. Some of the variations in outcomes were at the team level. Patient- and clinician-reported outcomes should be used more in studies on the effect of treatment provided by crisis resolution teams.

Fidelity to an evidence-based model for crisis resolution teams: a cross-sectional multicentre study in Norway.

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.

A combined individual and group-based stabilization and skill training intervention versus treatment as usual for patients with long lasting posttraumatic reactions receiving outpatient treatment in specialized mental health care - a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Suffering linked to previous interpersonal trauma is common among patients in mental health care. Diagnostic labels may vary, but the clinical picture is often characterized by long-lasting and complex psychological and somatic symptoms, subjective distress and reduced quality of health and life. A substantial proportion of patients do not recover after individual treatment in ordinary specialized mental healthcare settings, despite the proven usefulness of individual trauma-specific treatments. The therapeutic factors that arise in group settings, such as normalization, shame reduction and corrective relational experiences, may be particularly useful for trauma survivors. However, evidence in support of group treatment for trauma survivors is scarce. This study aims to test whether combining a novel group intervention to individual treatment is superior to conventional individual out-patient treatment in an ordinary community mental health hospital. METHODS: In a single-site, non-blinded, randomized controlled trial (RCT), the effect of a combined group-based stabilization and skill-training (SST) intervention added to individual treatment will be compared to conventional treatment (treatment as usual, TAU) alone. Participants (N = 160) with ongoing and long-lasting reactions related to known adverse life events from the past will be recruited among patients at general outpatient clinics in a community mental health centre at St. Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. Following baseline assessment and randomization, participants will complete follow-up measures at 4, 8, 13 and 19 months post-baseline. The primary outcome is personal recovery (The questionnaire about the process of recovery , QPR). Secondary outcomes include (1) self-reported symptoms of posttraumatic stress, general mental and somatic health symptoms, well-being, functional impairment and client satisfaction, (2) immunological and endocrine response measured in blood samples and (3) national registry data on occupational status, use of mental health services and pharmacological treatment. Additionally, mechanisms of change via posttraumatic cognitions will be examined. DISCUSSION: The addition of a group-based intervention to individual treatment for trauma survivors might prove to be an efficient way to meet the need of long-lasting high-intensity treatment in a large group of patients in mental health care, thereby reducing their suffering and increasing their psychosocial functioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03887559. Registered on 25 March 2019.