↓ Skip to main content

Crisis resolution and home treatment: stakeholders’ views on critical ingredients and implementation in England

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
116 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Crisis resolution and home treatment: stakeholders’ views on critical ingredients and implementation in England
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1421-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Morant, Brynmor Lloyd-Evans, Danielle Lamb, Kate Fullarton, Eleanor Brown, Beth Paterson, Hannah Istead, Kathleen Kelly, David Hindle, Sarah Fahmy, Claire Henderson, Oliver Mason, Sonia Johnson, CORE Service User and Carer Working groups

Abstract

Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) can provide effective home-based treatment for acute mental health crises, although critical ingredients of the model have not been clearly identified, and implementation has been inconsistent. In order to inform development of a more highly specified CRT model that meets service users' needs, this study used qualitative methods to investigate stakeholders' experiences and views of CRTs, and what is important in good quality home-based crisis care. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with service users (n = 41), carers (n = 20) and practitioners (CRT staff, managers and referrers; n = 147, 26 focus groups, 9 interviews) in 10 mental health catchment areas in England, and with international CRT developers (n = 11). Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Three domains salient to views about optimal care were identified. 1. The organisation of CRT care: Providing a rapid initial responses, and frequent home visits from the same staff were seen as central to good care, particularly by service users and carers. Being accessible, reliable, and having some flexibility were also valued. Negative experiences of some referral pathways, and particularly lack of staff continuity were identified as problematic. 2. The content of CRT work: Emotional support was at the centre of service users' experiences. All stakeholder groups thought CRTs should involve the whole family, and offer a range of interventions. However, carers often feel excluded, and medication is often prioritised over other forms of support. 3. The role of CRTs within the care system: Gate-keeping admissions is seen as a key role for CRTs within the acute care system. Service users and carers report that recovery is quicker compared to in-patient care. Lack of knowledge and misunderstandings about CRTs among referrers are common. Overall, levels of stakeholder agreement about the critical ingredients of good crisis care were high, although aspects of this were not always seen as achievable. Stakeholders' views about optimal CRT care suggest that staff continuity, carer involvement, and emotional and practical support should be prioritised in service improvements and more clearly specified CRT models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 116 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 169 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 19%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Other 11 7%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 45 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 57 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 October 2021.
All research outputs
#549,640
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#140
of 5,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,036
of 307,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#9
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,465 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.