RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In England, a range of mental health crisis care models and approaches to organising crisis care systems have been implemented, but characteristics associated with their effectiveness are poorly understood. AIMS: To (a) develop a typology of catchment area mental health crisis care systems and (b) investigate how crisis care service models and system characteristics relate to psychiatric hospital admissions and detentions. METHOD: Crisis systems data were obtained from a 2019 English national survey. Latent class analyses were conducted to identify discernible typologies, and mixed-effects negative binomial regression models were fitted to explore associations between crisis care models and admissions and detention rates, obtained from nationally reported data. RESULTS: No clear typology of catchment area crisis care systems emerged. Regression models suggested that provision of a crisis telephone service within the local crisis system was associated with a 11.6% lower admissions rate and 15.3% lower detention rate. Provision of a crisis cafe was associated with a 7.8% lower admission rates. The provision of a crisis assessment team separate from the crisis resolution and home treatment service was associated with a 12.8% higher admission rate. CONCLUSIONS: The configuration of crisis care systems varies considerably in England, but we could not derive a typology that convincingly categorised crisis care systems. Our results suggest that a crisis phone line and a crisis cafe may be associated with lower admission rates. However, our findings suggest crisis assessment teams, separate from home treatment teams, may not be associated with reductions in admission and detentions.
RESUMO
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.
