Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a crisis resolution team. Design Randomised controlled trial. Participants 260 residents of the inner London Borough of Islington who were experiencing crises severe enough for hospital admission to be considered. Interventions Acute care including a 24 hour crisis resolution team (experimental group), compared with standard care from inpatient services and community mental health teams (control group). Main outcome measures Hospital admission and patients' satisfaction. Results Patients in the experimental group were less likely to be admitted to hospital in the eight weeks after the crisis (odds ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.32), though compulsory admission was not significantly reduced. A difference of 1.6 points in the mean score on the client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ-8) was not quite significant (P = 0.07), although it became so after adjustment for baseline characteristics (P = 0.002). Conclusion Crisis resolution teams can reduce hospital admissions in mental health crises. They may also increase satisfaction in patients, but this was an equivocal finding.

Objective To compare outcomes of care from assertive community treatment teams with care by community mental health teams for people with serious mental illnesses. Design Non-blind randomised controlled trial. Setting Two inner London boroughs. Participants 251 men and women under the care of adult secondary mental health services with recent high use of inpatient care and difficulties engaging with community services. Interventions Treatment from assertive community treatment team (127 participants) or continuation of care from community mental health team (124 participants). Main outcome measures Primary outcome was inpatient bed use 18 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, social function, client satisfaction, and engagement with services. Results No significant differences were found in inpatient bed use (median difference 1, 95% confidence interval −16 to 38) or in clinical or social outcomes for the two treatment groups. Clients who received care from the assertive community treatment team seemed better engaged (adapted homeless engagement acceptance schedule: difference in means 1.1, 1.0 to 1.9), and those who agreed to be interviewed were more satisfied with services (adapted client satisfaction questionnaire: difference in means 7.14, 0.9 to 13.4). Conclusions Community mental health teams are able to support people with serious mental illnesses as effectively as assertive community treatment teams, but assertive community treatment may be better at engaging clients and may lead to greater satisfaction with services.

Background Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) are being introduced throughout England, but their evidence base is limited. Aims To compare outcomes of crises before and after introduction of a CRT. Method A new methodology was developed for identification and operational definition of crises. A quasi-experimental design was used to compare cohorts presenting just before and just after a CRT was established. Results Following introduction of the CRT, the admission rate in the 6 weeks after a crisis fell from 71% to 49% (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.70). A difference of 5.6 points (95% CI 2.0-8.3) on mean Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) score favoured the CRT. These findings remained significant after adjustment for baseline differences. No clear difference emerged in involuntary hospitalisations, symptoms, social functioning or quality of life. Conclusions CRTs may prevent some admissions and patients prefer them, although other outcomes appear unchanged in the short term.

Summary: The only randomised controlled trial to test high-fidelity assertive community treatment (ACT) in the UK (the Randomised Evaluation of Assertive Community Treatment (REACT) study) found no advantage over usual care from community mental health teams in reducing the need for inpatient care and in other clinical outcomes, but participants found ACT more acceptable and engaged better with it. One possible reason for the lack of efficacy of ACT might be the short period of follow-up (18 months in the REACT study). This paper reports on participants' service contact, in-patient service use and adverse events 36 months after randomisation.

Poor service user experiences are often reported on mental health inpatient wards. Crisis houses are an alternative, but evidence is limited. This paper investigates therapeutic alliances in acute wards and crisis houses, exploring how far stronger therapeutic alliance may underlie greater client satisfaction in crisis houses. Mixed methods were used. In the quantitative component, 108 crisis house and 247 acute ward service users responded to measures of satisfaction, therapeutic relationships, informal peer support, recovery and negative events experienced during the admission. Linear regressions were conducted to estimate the association between service setting and measures, and to model the factors associated with satisfaction. Qualitative interviews exploring therapeutic alliances were conducted with service users and staff in each setting and analysed thematically. We found that therapeutic alliances, service user satisfaction and informal peer support were greater in crisis houses than on acute wards, whilst self-rated recovery and numbers of negative events were lower. Adjusted multivariable analyses suggest that therapeutic relationships, informal peer support and negative experiences related to staff may be important factors in accounting for greater satisfaction in crisis houses. Qualitative results suggest factors that influence therapeutic alliances include service user perceptions of basic human qualities such as kindness and empathy in staff and, at service level, the extent of loss of liberty and autonomy. We found that service users experience better therapeutic relationships and higher satisfaction in crisis houses compared to acute wards, although we cannot exclude the possibility that differences in service user characteristics contribute to this. This finding provides some support for the expansion of crisis house provision. Further research is needed to investigate why acute ward service users experience a lack of compassion and humanity from ward staff and how this could be changed.