Abstract
Background Crisis cafés (also known as crisis sanctuaries or havens) are community-based services which support people in mental health crises, aiming to provide an informal, non-clinical and accessible setting. This model is increasingly popular in the UK; however, we are aware of no peer-reviewed literature focused on this model. We aimed to use qualitative methods to investigate managers’ views of the aims of crisis cafés, how they operate in practice and the factors that affect access to these services and implementation of the intended model.
Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 managers of crisis cafés across England. Data were analysed using a thematic approach.
Results We identified five main perceived aims for crisis cafés: providing an alternative to A&E; improving access to crisis care; providing people in acute distress with someone to talk to in a safe and comfortable space; triaging effectively; and improving crisis planning and people’s coping skills. Factors seen as influencing the effectiveness of crisis cafés included accessibility, being able to deliver person-centred care, relationships with other services, and staffing. These factors could both help and hinder access to care and the implementation of the intended model. There were a number of trade-offs that services had to consider when designing and running a crisis café: 1. Balancing an open-door policy with managing demand for the service through referral routes, 2. Balancing risk management procedures with the remit of offering a non-clinical environment and 3. Increasing awareness of the service in the community whilst avoiding stigmatising perceptions of it.
Conclusions Findings illustrate the aims of the crisis café model of care and factors which are influential in its implementation in current practice. Future research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of these services in relation to their aims. Crisis café service users’ views, and views of stakeholders from the wider crisis care system should also be ascertained.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This paper is based on independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Programme, though the NIHR Policy Research Unit for Mental Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Director of the North Central London Research Consortium (NOCLOR) gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
