To evaluate the impact of treatment provided by a Crisis Resolution Home Treatment Team (CRHTT) in terms of preventing hospital admission, impact on service user’s symptoms and overall functioning, as well as service user’s satisfaction with the service. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the patient characteristics of those attending the CRHTT.

All the service users treated by the CRHTT between 2016 and 2020 were included. Service users completed the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS), and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-version 8 (CSQ-8) before and after treatment by the CRHTT. Admission rates were compared between areas served by the CRHTT and control, before and after the introduction of the CRHTT, using two-way ANOVA.

Between 2016 and 2020, 1041 service users were treated by the service. Inpatient admissions in the areas served by the CRHTT fell by 38.5% after its introduction. There was a statistically significant interaction between CRHTT availability and time on admission rate, F (1,28) = 8.4, p = .007. BPRS scores were reduced significantly (p < .001), from a mean score of 32.01 before treatment to 24.64 after treatment. Mean HoNOS scores were 13.6 before and 9.1 after treatment (p < .001). Of the 1041 service users receiving the CSQ-8, only 180 returned it (17.3%). Service users’ median responses were “very positive” to all eight items on the CSQ-8.

Although our study design has limitations this paper provides some support that CRHTT might be effective for the prevention of inpatient admission. The study also supports that CRHTT might be an effective option for the treatment of acute mental illness and crisis, although further research is needed in this area.

Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) offer brief, intensive home treatment for people experiencing mental health crisis. CRT implementation is highly variable; positive trial outcomes have not been reproduced in scaled-up CRT care.

To evaluate a 1-year programme to improve CRTs’ model fidelity in a non-masked, cluster-randomised trial (part of the Crisis team Optimisation and RElapse prevention (CORE) research programme, trial registration number: ISRCTN47185233).

Fifteen CRTs in England received an intervention, informed by the US Implementing Evidence-Based Practice project, involving support from a CRT facilitator, online implementation resources and regular team fidelity reviews. Ten control CRTs received no additional support. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction, measured by the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8), completed by 15 patients per team at CRT discharge (n = 375). Secondary outcomes: CRT model fidelity, continuity of care, staff well-being, in-patient admissions and bed use and CRT readmissions were also evaluated.

All CRTs were retained in the trial. Median follow-up CSQ-8 score was 28 in each group: the adjusted average in the intervention group was higher than in the control group by 0.97 (95% CI −1.02 to 2.97) but this was not significant (P = 0.34). There were fewer in-patient admissions, lower in-patient bed use and better staff psychological health in intervention teams. Model fidelity rose in most intervention teams and was significantly higher than in control teams at follow-up. There were no significant effects for other outcomes.

The CRT service improvement programme did not achieve its primary aim of improving patient satisfaction. It showed some promise in improving CRT model fidelity and reducing acute in-patient admissions.

To determine the distribution, functioning and perceived impact of home-based treatment (HBT) teams for acute mental disorders on the island of Ireland.

A 28-item questionnaire exploring the structure, staffing and operation of HBT teams was emailed to all clinical directors of mental health services in Ireland (n=26) and Northern Ireland (NI) (n=5). Quantitative data was analysed using the Survey Monkey package, while free-text responses to open questions were analysed for thematic content.

In total, 11 of 16 (68%) mental health services in Ireland and four of five (80%) in NI confirmed the presence of HBT teams. For 80% of respondents the primary function of HBT was as an alternative to inpatient admission. All NI respondents reported provision of a 24/7 HBT service. A 7 day a week service was reported by 82% of Republic of Ireland respondents. In total, 70% of respondents reported a gate-keeping role for their teams. Staffing levels and multidisciplinary representation varied widely. Most respondents perceived HBT as improving patient/carer experience and cost-effectiveness.

Our findings suggest that the implementation of the HBT model in Ireland has not fulfilled the aspirations set out in mental health policy in both Irish jurisdictions. Many areas have no HBT services while wide variations in staffing levels and functioning persist. However, mental health services with established HBT teams appear convinced of their positive impact. An All-Ireland forum on HBT may help to define the model in an Irish context and standardise its future resourcing, operation and evaluation.