Volume 29, Issue 2 pp. 187-201
Original Article

Crisis resolution and home treatment in the UK: A survey of model fidelity using a novel review methodology

Danielle Lamb PhD

Corresponding Author

Danielle Lamb PhD

University College London, London, UK

Correspondence: Danielle Lamb, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK. Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Brynmor Lloyd-Evans PhD

Brynmor Lloyd-Evans PhD

University College London, London, UK

Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Kate Fullarton MSc

Kate Fullarton MSc

University College London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Kathleen Kelly MBBS, BSC Nutrition

Kathleen Kelly MBBS, BSC Nutrition

Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Nicky Goater BSc MRCPsych

Nicky Goater BSc MRCPsych

West London NHS Trust, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Oliver Mason PhD

Oliver Mason PhD

North East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Richard Gray PhD

Richard Gray PhD

University of West of England, Bristol, UK

Search for more papers by this author
David Osborn PhD

David Osborn PhD

University College London, London, UK

Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Fiona Nolan PhD

Fiona Nolan PhD

Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Steve Pilling PhD

Steve Pilling PhD

University College London, London, UK

Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Sarah A. Sullivan PhD

Sarah A. Sullivan PhD

University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Claire Henderson PhD

Claire Henderson PhD

King’s College London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Alyssa Milton PhD

Alyssa Milton PhD

University College London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Emma Burgess MSc

Emma Burgess MSc

University College London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Alasdair Churchard MSc

Alasdair Churchard MSc

University College London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Mike Davidson MA

Mike Davidson MA

University College London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Johanna Frerichs MSc

Johanna Frerichs MSc

University College London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
David Hindle BSc

David Hindle BSc

University College London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Beth Paterson MSc

Beth Paterson MSc

University College London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Ellie Brown PhD

Ellie Brown PhD

University of West of England, Bristol, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Jonathan Piotrowski MSc

Jonathan Piotrowski MSc

Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, Bath, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Claire Wheeler MSc

Claire Wheeler MSc

University College London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Sonia Johnson DM

Sonia Johnson DM

University College London, London, UK

Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 30 September 2019
Citations: 19
Authorship statement: DL managed the study and wrote the manuscript. BLE, KK, NG, OM, RG, DO, FN, SP, CH and SJ conceived of and designed the study. DL, BLE, KK, NG, OM, RG, FN, SP, SJ, SS, AM, EB, AC, MD, JF, DH, BP, EB, JPand CW collected data. All authors edited the manuscript. All authors meet the authorship criteria according to the latest guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. All authors are in agreement with the manuscript.
Disclosure statement: This study was undertaken as part of the CORE Programme, which was funded by the UK Department of Health National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (Reference Number: RP-PG-0109-10078). The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Neither the study funders not its sponsors had any role in study design, in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data, or in the writing of this report or the decision to submit it for publication. SJ, DO and BLE were in part supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North Thames at Bart’s Health NHS Trust. SJ and BLE were in part supported by the NIHR Policy Research Unit for Mental Health. There are no conflicts of interest.

Abstract

Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) provide treatment at home to people experiencing mental health crises, as an alternative to hospital admission. Previous UK research, based on self-report surveys, suggests that a loosely specified model has resulted in wide variations in CRTs’ service delivery, organization and outcomes. A fidelity scale (developed through evidence review and stakeholder consensus) provided a means of objectively measuring adherence to a model of good practice for CRTs, via one-day fidelity reviews of UK crisis teams. Reviews included interviews with service users, carers, staff and managers, and examination of data, policies, protocols and anonymized case notes. Of the 75 teams reviewed, 49 (65%) were assessed as being moderate fidelity and the rest as low fidelity, with no team achieving high fidelity. The median score was 122 (range: 73–151; inter-quartile range: 111–132). Teams achieved higher scores on items about structure and organization, for example ease of referral, medication and safety systems, but scored poorly on items about the content of care and interventions. Despite a national mandate to implement the CRT model, there are wide variations in implementation in the UK and no teams in our sample achieved overall high fidelity. This suggests that a mandatory national policy is not in itself sufficient to achieve good quality implementation of a service model. The CRT Fidelity Scale provides a feasible and acceptable means to objectively assess model fidelity in CRTs. There is a need for development and testing of interventions to enhance model fidelity and facilitate improvements to these services.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.