BackgroundCrisis Resolution Teams (CRTs) aim to offer an alternative to hospital admission during mental health crises, providing rapid assessment, home treatment, and facilitation of early discharge from hospital. CRTs were implemented nationally in England following the NHS Plan of 2000. Single centre studies suggest CRTs can reduce hospital admissions and increase service users’ satisfaction: however, there is also evidence that model implementation and outcomes vary considerably. Evidence on crucial characteristics of effective CRTs is needed to allow team functioning to be optimised. This review aims to establish what evidence, if any, is available regarding the characteristics of effective and acceptable CRTs.MethodsA systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched to November 2013. A further web-based search was conducted for government and expert guidelines on CRTs. We analysed studies separately as: comparing CRTs to Treatment as Usual; comparing two or more CRT models; national or regional surveys of CRT services; qualitative studies of stakeholders’ views regarding best practice in CRTs; and guidelines from government and expert organisations regarding CRT service delivery. Quality assessment and narrative synthesis were conducted. Statistical meta-analysis was not feasible due to the variety of design of retrieved studies.ResultsSixty-nine studies were included. Studies varied in quality and in the composition and activities of the clinical services studied. Quantitative studies suggested that longer opening hours and the presence of a psychiatrist in the team may increase CRTs’ ability to prevent hospital admissions. Stakeholders emphasised communication and integration with other local mental health services; provision of treatment at home; and limiting the number of different staff members visiting a service user. Existing guidelines prioritised 24-hour, seven-day-a-week CRT service provision (including psychiatrist and medical prescriber); and high quality of staff training.ConclusionsWe cannot draw confident conclusions about the critical components of CRTs from available quantitative evidence. Clearer definition of the CRT model is required, informed by stakeholders’ views and guidelines. Future studies examining the relationship of overall CRT model fidelity to outcomes, or evaluating the impact of key aspects of the CRT model, are desirable.Trial registrationProspero CRD42013006415.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-015-0441-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The aims of this study were to review the psychometric properties of the widely used Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) using meta-analytic methods, and to investigate the relationship between PCS scores and participant characteristics. A systematic search from 1995 found 229 experimental, quasi-experimental and correlational studies that report PCS scores. Multivariate regression explored variables related to pain catastrophizing and participant demographics. Across studies, good internal reliability (α = 0.92, 95% CI 0.91-0.93) and test-retest reliability scores (Spearman ρ = 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.93) were found for PCS total scores but not for subscales. PCS scores were unrelated to age or gender, but strongly related to participants' pain type, highest in those with generalized pain. Language of the PCS also affected PCS scores, with further research necessary to determine linguistic, cultural or methodological (e.g. sampling strategy) influences. Study type influenced PCS scores with non-randomized controlled trials reporting higher PCS scores than other study types, but results were confounded with pain diagnosis, as controlled trials were more likely than quasi-experimental studies to recruit clinical samples. The meta-analytic results provide insight into demographic influences on pain catastrophizing scores and highlight areas for further research. The advantages of systematic review and meta-analytic methods to achieve greater understanding and precision of psychometric propertiesin this case, of the PCSare applicable to other widely used outcome tools.

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.

Background Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) seek to avert hospital admissions by providing intensive home treatment for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The CRT model has not been highly specified. CRT care is often experienced as ending abruptly and relapse rates following CRT discharge are high. Aims The aims of CORE (Crisis resolution team Optimisation and RElapse prevention) workstream 1 were to specify a model of best practice for CRTs, develop a measure to assess adherence to this model and evaluate service improvement resources to help CRTs implement the model with high fidelity. The aim of CORE workstream 2 was to evaluate a peer-provided self-management programme aimed at reducing relapse following CRT support. Methods Workstream 1 was based on a systematic review, national CRT manager survey and stakeholder qualitative interviews to develop a CRT fidelity scale through a concept mapping process with stakeholders (n = 68). This was piloted in CRTs nationwide (n = 75). A CRT service improvement programme (SIP) was then developed and evaluated in a cluster randomised trial: 15 CRTs received the SIP over 1 year; 10 teams acted as controls. The primary outcome was service user satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included CRT model fidelity, catchment area inpatient admission rates and staff well-being. Workstream 2 was a peer-provided self-management programme that was developed through an iterative process of systematic literature reviewing, stakeholder consultation and preliminary testing. This intervention was evaluated in a randomised controlled trial: 221 participants recruited from CRTs received the intervention and 220 did not. The primary outcome was re-admission to acute care at 1 year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included time to re-admission and number of days in acute care over 1 year of follow-up and symptoms and personal recovery measured at 4 and 18 months’ follow-up. Results Workstream 1 – a 39-item CRT fidelity scale demonstrated acceptability, face validity and promising inter-rater reliability. CRT implementation in England was highly variable. The SIP trial did not produce a positive result for patient satisfaction [median Client Satisfaction Questionnaire score of 28 in both groups at follow-up; coefficient 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.02 to 2.97]. The programme achieved modest increases in model fidelity. Intervention teams achieved lower inpatient admission rates and less inpatient bed use. Qualitative evaluation suggested that the programme was generally well received. Workstream 2 – the trial yielded a statistically significant result for the primary outcome, in which rates of re-admission to acute care over 1 year of follow-up were lower in the intervention group than in the control group (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; p = 0.044). Time to re-admission was lower and satisfaction with care was greater in the intervention group at 4 months’ follow-up. There were no other significant differences between groups in the secondary outcomes. Limitations Limitations in workstream 1 included uncertainty regarding the representativeness of the sample for the primary outcome and lack of blinding for assessment. In workstream 2, the limitations included the complexity of the intervention, preventing clarity about which were effective elements. Conclusions The CRT SIP did not achieve all its aims but showed potential promise as a means to increase CRT model fidelity and reduce inpatient service use. The peer-provided self-management intervention is an effective means to reduce relapse rates for people leaving CRT care. Study registration The randomised controlled trials were registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47185233 and ISRCTN01027104. The systematic reviews were registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006415 and CRD42017043048. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

This single case study describes acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) with exposure and response prevention (ERP) used with a client presenting with symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Standardized and idiographic outcome measures, including OCDspecific measures (Brief Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale; Obsessional Compulsive Inventory), general measures of well-being and risk (CORE Outcome Measure; Outcome Rating Scale), an idiographic measure (Easy Personal Questionnaire), and a Sessional Rating Scale, were used across baseline and treatment phases. Statistical measures of reliable and clinical change were calculated, and client perspective on change was sought through interview. Cause-effect analysis was used to evaluate the extent to which therapeutic change was due to ACT-specific processes. Results showed reliable positive change with a probability of p < .05 across measures, and clinical change in three of five of the measures in which it could be calculated. The client reported improvements in well-being and the extent to which she lives her life according to her values. ACT-specific processes as well as generic therapy processes influenced change. The client's own strengths and personal contributions to therapy played a major role in her achievement of therapeutic goals. The use of ACT with ERP in treating OCD and collaborative use of outcome measures with careful evaluation are recommended to clinicians.