Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T15:16:13.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Crisis resolution and home treatment teams and admissions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Seng-Eng Goh*
Affiliation:
Bushey Fields Hospital, Dudley DY1 2LZ, email: DrSeng-Eng.Goh@dudley.nhs.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2007

Jethwa et al (Psychiatric Bulletin, May 2007, 31, 170–172) discussed several reasons for the 37.5% reduction in monthly admission following the formation of the crisis resolution and home treatment service in Leeds. The question remains: which one of these factors has the greatest influence? There is little doubt that screening the patient first by competent crisis resolution staff and the availability of home treatment helps to avoid inappropriate admissions. However, the formation of the service was at the same time as the 35% reduction of 54 general adult beds from 155 to 101. It is well known that if there are fewer beds the threshold for admission goes up and only the more severely ill and those on sections are admitted.

Unfortunately Jethwa et al did not provide other data which might help to explain the lower admission rates. These include occupancy rates before and after formation of the service, if rates of patients admitted under the Mental Health Act 1983 had increased, if consultants had difficulty in finding a bed or had to put patients on a waiting list for admission, and if alternative in-patient facilities were used (e.g. other respite beds, hostels, private hospitals, etc.). Perhaps the more likely explanation for the 37.5% reduction in admission rates is that there were 35% fewer beds for admission and only the most severely ill were admitted.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.