Browse/search for people

Publication - Dr Sarah Sullivan

    The CORE Service Improvement Programme for mental health Crisis Resolution Teams

    results from a cluster-randomised trial

    Citation

    Evans, B, Marston, L, Lamb, D, Mason, O, Ambler, G, Hunter, R, Sullivan, S, Henderson, C, Onyett, S, Johnston, E, Morant, N, Nolan, F, Kelly, K, Christoforou, M, Fullarton, K, Forsyth, R, Davidson, M, Piotrowski, J, Mundy, E, Bond, G & Johnson, S, 2019, ‘The CORE Service Improvement Programme for mental health Crisis Resolution Teams: results from a cluster-randomised trial’. British Journal of Psychiatry.

    Abstract

    Background: Crisis Resolution Teams (CRTs) offer brief, intensive home treatment for people experiencing mental health crisis. CRT implementation is highly variable; positive trial outcomes have not been reproduced in scaled up CRT care.
    Aims: To evaluate a one-year programme to improve CRTs’ model fidelity in a non-blind, cluster randomised trial.

    Methods: Fifteen CRTs in England received an intervention, informed by the US Implementing Evidence Based Practice project, involving support from a CRT Facilitator, online implementation resources and regular team fidelity reviews. Ten control CRTs received no additional support. The primary outcome was service user satisfaction, measured by the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8), completed by fifteen service users per team at CRT discharge (N=375). Secondary outcomes: CRT model fidelity, continuity of care, staff wellbeing, inpatient admissions and bed use and CRT readmissions were also evaluated.

    Results: All CRTs were retained in the trial. Median follow-up CSQ-8 score was 28 in each group: the adjusted average in the intervention group was higher than in the control group by 0.97 (CI-1.02, 2.97) but this was not significant (p=0.34). There were fewer inpatient admissions, lower inpatient bed use and better staff psychological health in intervention teams. Model fidelity rose in most intervention teams and was significantly higher than in control teams at follow up. There were no significant effects for other outcomes.

    Conclusions: The CRT Service Improvement Programme did not achieve its primary aim of improving service user satisfaction. It showed some promise in improving CRT model fidelity and reducing acute inpatient admissions.

    Full details in the University publications repository