The Psychiatrist (2008) 32: 474. doi: 10.1192/pb.32.12.474
© 2008 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Toynbee, L.
Right arrow Articles by Allen, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Toynbee, L.
Right arrow Articles by Allen, D.

Correspondence

Non-engagement and the assertive outreach team

Lucy Toynbee, Assertive Outreach Worker and Danny Allen, Consultant Psychiatrist

Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, Harlow House, Harlow Road, High Wycombe, Bucks HP13 6AA, email: danny.allen{at}obmh.nhs.uk

The concept of non-engagement lies at the heart of the Assertive Outreach Team (AOT) model (Stein & Test, 1980). However, in our experience there is widespread misunderstanding within mental health services about what this term means. Apart from non-engagement, the other primary criterion for acceptance into an AOT is a diagnosis of a severe and enduring mental illness, which is likely to lead to several secondary factors, including dual diagnosis, a history of self-neglect, repeated hospital admissions, chaotic lifestyle and housing problems.

Referrers often misconstrue these criteria. They see the secondary list as having equal weight as the primary, believing that AOTs specialise in working with difficult-to-manage service users, whereas in fact there is no evidence for this (Burns, 2004). Special skills of AOT staff lie in developing a good therapeutic relationship with individuals with a primary diagnosis of severe and enduring mental illness who have not engaged with the community mental health team (CMHT) at all, and this is a powerful determinant of how well a person will respond to professional input (Priebe & Gruyters, 1993).

Referring to AOT individuals with a severe mental illness who are only partially engaging with the CMHT on the grounds that these particular people are deemed chaotic (Burns, 2004), high-risk and hard to manage is not risk-free. Transitions between teams are known to be times of high risk for service users (e.g. increased suicide rates in individuals moved from in-patient to out-patient care; Crawford, 2004). If AOTs accept service users who are engaging with their CMHT, they may contribute to the removal of a support network to which the person has become accustomed. It may be very difficult for service users to make the change from dealing with two or maybe three familiar individuals to as many as eight or nine unfamiliar AOT staff. Accepting inappropriate users is demoralising for members of an outreach team, who have been trained and have chosen to work with a particular, non-engaging patient group (Libberton, 2000). Not only will AOTs feel pressured to accept more such referrals, but in the process CMHTs are in real danger of becoming de-skilled.

Lastly and most importantly, individuals are likely to experience a sense of loss or rejection when transferred to an AOT with all the attendant risks of morbidity and mortality. We believe that it is vital that AOT and CMHT staff have a good, shared understanding of what is meant by the term non-engagement and that inappropriate referrals are not accepted. The Department of Health has rightly made clear that any change in emphasis to simply increase a team’s number of service users by taking on people who are not suitable for AOTs should be avoided (Department of Health et al, 2005).

References

  1. BURNS, T. (2004) Community Mental Health Teams. A Guide to Current Practice. Oxford University Press.
  2. CRAWFORD, M. J. (2004) Suicide following discharge from in-patient psychiatric care. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 10, 434 –438.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH IN ENGLAND & CARE SERVICES IMPROVEMENT PARTNERSHIP (2005) Assertive Outreach in Mental Health in England. Report from a Day Seminar on Research, Policy and Practice. CSIP (http://www.csip.org.uk/silo/files/ao-seminar-report.pdf).
  4. LIBBERTON, P. (2000) Getting your ACT together. Mental Health Nursing, 20, 14 –17.
  5. PRIEBE, S. & GRUYTERS, T. (1993) The role of the helping alliance in psychiatric community care. A prospective study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181, 552 –557.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. STEIN, L. I. & TEST, M. A. (1980) Alternative to mental hospital treatment. I. Conceptual model, treatment program, and clinical evaluation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 37, 392 –327.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Toynbee, L.
Right arrow Articles by Allen, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Toynbee, L.
Right arrow Articles by Allen, D.