Background
CRTs in England
Impact of CRT implementation
Aims and scope of study
Methods
Protocol and registration
Inclusion criteria
Services
Participants
Types of study
Search strategy
Data extraction
Quality of individual studies
Synthesis of results
Results
Study selection
Study characteristics
Study Reference
|
MMAT score
|
Study characteristics
|
CRT models compared
|
Results
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Allen (2009) [31] | n/a | Natural experiment with pre- and post-comparison; Buckinghamshire, UK | CRT team pre and post several organisational changes: “patient typing” system categorising service user needs introduced; greater use of leave from hospital to promote early discharge; referrals to CRT from other mental health services accepted without reassessment; structured screening tools introduced for acute assessments; closer links between CRT and day hospital introduced with single key worker system | Reduction in inpatient bed provision and greater service user satisfaction reported following changes. No statistical tests or numerical results reported |
Doyle (1994) [32] | 3 | Natural experiment with parallel groups: 1 Team in Folkestone, UK 1 Team in Barnet, UK | Folkestone CRT with 9 am-5 pm opening hours | No clear difference between CRT models reported and no statistical tests reported. Over the follow-up period |
Barnet CRT with 24 hour opening | ||||
9% of the 9-5 (Folkestone) CRT service users were admitted to hospital vs 5% Barnet | ||||
Happell (2009) [33] | 3 | Natural experiment with pre- and post-comparison of parallel groups; Melbourne, Australia | Control Group: Day after initial assessment, full assessment given by trainee psychiatrist, care management plan formulated. | Mean HoNOS scores not significantly different between the groups at baseline – no p-values reported |
Treatment Group: Day after initial assessment, full assessment given by nurse practitioner, who took role of trainee psychiatrist (After 7 days service users in nurse-initiated care group reverted to treatment as usual) | HoNoS scores for both groups significantly improved with treatment (difference for control group: t = 7.90, df = 51, p < .001; difference for treatment group: t = 6.90, df = 50, p < .001) No information given as to whether there was a significant difference between group HoNOS scores after treatment. | |||
Service user and carer satisfaction scores were reported as not significantly different between groups – no p-values given | ||||
Harrison (2011) [34] | 3 | Natural experiment with pre- and post-comparison of a single CRT; Manchester, UK | • In 2005 (‘pre’), referrals were only taken from secondary services. | • 301 people treated in a six-month period in 2008/09, 128 in a comparable period in 2005 |
• In 2008-2009 (‘post’), referral routes extended to primary care. | ||||
• Mean duration of contact in 2008/09 – 24 days, in 2005 – 69 days | ||||
• 39% in 08/09 already known to services and in receipt of Care Plan Assessment (CPA), 70% in 05 (P < 0.005) | ||||
• Increase in proportion treated for less severe illnesses (less severe depression and other diagnoses) in 2008/09 compared with 2005 (increase from 25 to 50%, P < 0.0001) | ||||
• Fewer treated with severe mental illness (schizophrenia and related disorders, bipolar disorder and psychotic depression); 50% in 08/09, 75% in 2005, P < 0.0001 | ||||
Reding (1995) [35] | 4 | Retrospective natural experiment with pre- and post-comparison; Kalamazoo County, Michigan, USA | • Comparison of before and after the introduction of a psychiatrist to the team | There were significantly fewer state hospital admissions in the team with a psychiatrist (p < 0.001). (The decrease in state hospital admissions was not offset by a corresponding increase in admissions to the local private psychiatric hospital.) |
Results of studies
Quantitative comparison studies of two CRT models
Quantitative comparison studies of CRTs versus TAU
Outcome
|
Results
|
Studies(MMAT score)
|
24 hour service
|
Gatekeeping role reported and implemented
|
Staffing (>14 staff per 150,000 population)
|
Medical cover within the CRT team
|
Multidisciplinary
|
Early discharge service
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inpatient admissions(admission at time of crisis) | Superior outcomes for CRT (n = 10) | Adesanya 2005 (4) [36] | 7 papers = Yes (24 hour service was present) | 8 = Yes (had gatekeeping role) | 4 = No (staffing not adequate) | 8 = Yes (had medical cover) | 8 = Yes (multidisciplinary) | 5 = Yes (had early discharge service) |
Barker 2011 (2) [12] | ||||||||
Dibben 2008 (3) [39] | 2 = No (no gatekeeping role) | 6 = Not reported | 1 = No (no medical cover) | 1 = No (not multidisciplinary) | ||||
Guo 2001 (4) [41] | 2 papers = No (24 hour service was not present) | |||||||
Hugo 2002 (4) [42] | 1 = No (no early discharge service) | |||||||
Jethwa 2007 (3) [43] | 1 = Not reported | |||||||
Johnson 2005a (3) [8] | 1 = Characteristic not reported | |||||||
Johnson 2005b (3) [9] | 1 = Not reported | |||||||
Keown 2007 (4) [45] | 4 = Not reported | |||||||
Piggott 1993(4) [47] | ||||||||
No significant difference between groups (n = 3) | Forbes 2010 (3) [40] | 1 = Yes (24 hour service) | 2 = Yes (had gatekeeping role) | 2 = Yes (staffing adequate) | 2 = Yes (had medical cover) | 1 = Yes (multidisciplinary) | 1 = Yes (had early discharge service) | |
Kolbjornsrud 2009 (4) [46] | ||||||||
2 = No (no 24-hour service) | 1 = No (no gatekeeping role) | 1 = Not reported | 1 = Not reported | 1 = No (not multidisciplinary) | ||||
Tyrer 2010 (2) [13] | ||||||||
1 = No (no early discharge service) | ||||||||
1 = Not reported | ||||||||
1 = Not reported | ||||||||
Inpatient bed days | Superior outcomes for CRT (n = 6) | Barker 2011 (2) [12] | 5 = Yes (24 hour service) | 5 = Yes (had gatekeeping role) | 1 = Yes (staffing adequate) | 5 = Yes (had medical cover) | 4 = Yes (multidisciplinary) | 4 = Yes (had early discharge service) |
Dean 1993 (3) [38] | ||||||||
Johnson 2005a* (3) [8] | 1 = Not reported | 1 = Not reported | 2 = No (staffing not adequate) | 1 = Not reported | 2 = Not reported | |||
Johnson 2005b (3) [9] | 2 = Not reported | |||||||
Johnson 2008 (0) [44] | 3 = Not reported | |||||||
Piggott 1993 (4) [47] | ||||||||
No significant difference between groups (n = 6) | Adesanya 2008 (4) [36] | 4 = Yes (24 hour service) | 5 = Yes (had gatekeeping role) | 1 = Yes (staffing adequate) | 3 = Yes (had medical cover) | 4 = Yes (multidisciplinary) | 2 = Yes (had early discharge service) | |
Bechdolf 2011 (4) [37] | ||||||||
Dibben 2008 (3) [39] | 2 = No (no 24-hour service) | 1 = Not reported | 1 = No (staffing not adequate) | 3 = Not reported | 2 = Not reported | |||
Forbes 2010 (3) [40] | ||||||||
4 = Not reported | 1 = No (no early discharge service) | |||||||
Keown 2007 (4) [45] | ||||||||
Tyrer 2010 (2) [13] | ||||||||
3 = not reported | ||||||||
Service user satisfaction | Superior outcomes for CRT (n = 3) | Johnson 2005a (3) [8] | 3 = Yes (24 hour service) | 2 = Yes (had gatekeeping role) | 1 = Yes (staffing adequate) | 2 = Yes (had medical cover) | 2 = Yes (multidisciplinary) | 2 = Yes (had early discharge service) |
Johnson 2005b(3) [9] | ||||||||
Johnson 2008 (0) [44] | 1 = Not reported | 2 = Not reported | 1 = Not reported | 1 = Not reported | 1 = Not reported | |||
No significant difference (n = 2) | Dibben 2008 (3) [39] | 1 = Yes (24 hour service) | 2 = Yes (had gatekeeping role) | 2 = Not reported | 1 = No (no medical cover) | 1 = Yes (multidisciplinary) | 1 = No (no early discharge service) | |
Tyrer 2010 (2) | 1 = No (no 24-hour service) | 1 = Not reported | 1 = Not reported | 1 = Not reported |
National/regional CRT surveys
Qualitative studies of stakeholders views on CRTs
CRT characteristic recommended by stakeholders
|
Number of studies where this theme was reported (n)
|
---|---|
Good communication and integration with other mental health services | n = 14 |
Provision of treatment at home | n = 11 |
Limiting the number of different staff visiting a service user | n = 10 |
Adequate staffing, including out of hours | n = 9 |
Good staff record keeping and information sharing | n = 8 |
Staff with time and willingness to “just listen” to service users | n = 8 |
Rapid CRT response and availability of treatment during a crisis | n = 8 |
Clear, inclusive eligibility criteria | n = 8 |
CRTs provide a clear bridge to longer term interventions and care | n = 8 |
Government and expert guidelines
CRT characteristic recommended by guidance
|
Number of sources recommending this characteristic (n)
|
---|---|
CRTs offer a 24-hour, 7 day a week service | n = 10 |
CRTs include a psychiatrist/medical cover | n = 10 |
High quality staff training in crisis home treatment | n = 6 |
CRTs have a multidisciplinary staff team | n = 6 |
CRTs act as gatekeepers for hospital admissions | n = 6 |
CRTs provide intensive, supportive interventions | n = 6 |
CRTs allocate a named worker for each service user | n = 6 |
Discharge from the CRT involves relapse prevention planning | n = 6 |
CRTs remain involved until a crisis has resolved | n = 6 |
CRTs undertake high quality auditing and service monitoring | n = 6 |