
Care Services Improvement Partnership SouthWest Development Centre, Mallard Court, Express Park, Bristol Road, Bridgwater, Somerset TA6 4RN, email: steve.onyett{at}nimhesw.nhs.uk
Institute of Public Policy, Leeds University
North East Public Health Observatory, and Honorary Professor of Public Mental Health, Wolfson Research Institute, University of Durham
Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust
Department of Computer Science, University of Durham
School of Sociology & Social Policy, University of Nottingham, and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
Funded through the Department of Healths Policy Research Programme.
See original paper pp.
378–379, this
issue.
AIMS AND METHOD
To describe implementation of crisis resolution/home treatment (CRHT) teams in England, examine obstacles to implementation and priorities for development. We conducted an online survey followed by a telephone or face-to-face interview among 243 teams.
RESULTS
Considerable progress has been made in implementation with a subset of teams demonstrating strong fidelity to the Department of Healths guidance, particularly in urban settings. However, only 40% of teams described themselves as fully established. Many teams reported a high assessment load, understaffing, limited multidisciplinary input and patchy fulfilment of their gatekeeping role.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Successful implementation of the CRHT teams as alternatives to hospital admission requires resources for home treatment out of hours, effective systems working among local services, stronger local understanding and advocacy of the teams role.
Related articles in PB:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
H. Middleton, G. Glover, S. Onyett, and K. Linde Crisis resolution/home treatment teams, gate-keeping and the role of the consultant psychiatrist Psychiatr. Bull., October 1, 2008; 32(10): 378 - 379. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
Read all eLetters