"Risky Business": a critical analysis of the role of crisis resolution and home treatment teams

Abstract Background: In 2000, the Department of Health for England recommended the creation of crisis resolution and home treatment teams (CRHTs) in order to reduce the number and length of psychiatric hospital admissions. Central to this was the role of gate-keeping all potential admissions. Aim: T...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of mental health (Abingdon, England) England), 2014-06, Vol.23 (3), p.130-134
Main Authors: Rhodes, Penny, Giles, Sally J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acute services
Community mental health
Crisis Intervention
Crisis resolution
England
Home based treatment
Home Care Services
Home health care
home treatment
Hospitalization
Humans
Mental health care
Mental Health Services
mental illness
Original
Patient admissions
psychiatric services
Systems approach
Teams
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background: In 2000, the Department of Health for England recommended the creation of crisis resolution and home treatment teams (CRHTs) in order to reduce the number and length of psychiatric hospital admissions. Central to this was the role of gate-keeping all potential admissions. Aim: To examine the interface between crisis resolution and home treatment and other mental health services. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with mental health professionals (n = 25) at eight sites within one Strategic Health Authority region. Results: Despite wide variation in approach and provision, all teams were confronting common issues related to tensions at both ends of the service user trajectory - on initial assessment and on discharge. Conclusion: The CRHT model is likely to be most effective when there is low staff turnover, flexibility in inter-team working arrangements and senior practitioners have both acute and community experience. Rather than being seen primarily as gatekeeper to the acute service, it would be better to take a system approach and view the CRHT as a resource for clients awaiting discharge or seeking to avoid hospital admission that is equally available to both acute and community services.
ISSN:0963-8237
1360-0567
DOI:10.3109/09638237.2014.889284