An investigation of the association between characteristics of local crisis care systems and service use in a national survey ============================================================================================================================= * Antonio Rojas-García * Christian Dalton-Locke * Luke Sheridan Rains * Ceri Dare * Cedric Ginestet * Una Foye * Kathleen Kelly * Sabine Landau * Chris Lynch * Paul McCrone * Shilpa Nairi * Karen Newbigging * Patrick Nyikavaranda * David Osborn * Karen Persaud * Nick Sevdalis * Martin Stefan * Ruth Stuart * Alan Simpson * Sonia Johnson * Brynmor Lloyd-Evans ## Abstract **Background** In England, a range of mental health crisis care models and approaches to organising crisis care systems have been implemented, but characteristics associated with their effectiveness are poorly understood. **Aims** To i) develop a typology of catchment area mental health crisis care systems and ii) investigate how crisis care service models and system characteristics relate to psychiatric hospital admissions and detentions. **Methods** Data about crisis systems were obtained from a 2019 English national survey. Latent class analyses were conducted to identify discernible typologies, and mixed effects negative binomial regression models were fitted to explore associations between crisis care models and admissions and detention rates, obtained from nationally-reported data. **Results** No clear typology of catchment area crisis care systems emerged. Regression models suggested that provision of a crisis telephone service within the local crisis system was associated to a 11.6% lower admissions rate and a 15.3% lower detention rate. Provision of a crisis café was associated with a 7.8% lower rate of admissions. The provision of a crisis assessment team separate from the crisis resolution and home treatment service was associated with a 12.8% higher rate of admissions. **Conclusions** The configuration of crisis care systems varies considerably in England, but we could notderive a typology which convincingly categorised crisis care systems. Our results suggest that a crisis phone line and a crisis café may be associated with lower rates of admission, but crisis assessment teams, separate from home treatment teams, may not be associate to reductions in hospital admission and detentions. ## Introduction The development and implementation of mental health services that effectively help to avoid unnecessary acute hospital admissions has been a fundamental objective of researchers and policy makers internationally in recent decades (1, 2). Widespread dissatisfaction with inpatient care and reports that some patients are traumatised or retraumatised by admissions, lack of clarity regarding what is achieved therapeutically and high costs are among the concerns about inpatient care: rising rates of compulsory detention in the UK and elsewhere (2) make the need to seek alternatives still more pressing, as compulsory detention is often associated with coercion and contrasts with the principles of consent and collaboration usually seen as essential to good care (3, 4). Consequently, innovative community crisis care models have emerged in the UK and internationally over several decades to provide alternatives to inpatient care and to improve assessment and triage of mental health crisis (2, 5). Three community service models are relatively well established in England and internationally, and have a research base suggesting that, if well-implemented, they can be an acceptable and comparably effective alternative to hospital admission for at least some patients in mental health crisis. These are: i) Crisis resolution and home treatment teams, which provide rapid assessment and intensive home treatment usually over a few days or weeks (6); ii) Acute Day Units (ADUs), which provide intensive treatment in settings where patients attend for several hours a day for a mixture of individual and group-based activities and therapeutic interventions (7); and iii) crisis houses, non-hospital residential crisis care services (15–16). The past decade has seen the further development in the UK of models intended to reduce pressures on emergency and inpatient mental health services for which evidence is largely lacking (8–10). Some newer models, including crisis cafés, street triage teams, and crisis assessment services that are distinct from home treatment services, have proliferated, whilst others such as ADUs have decreased (2). This has led to a substantial heterogeneity in local crisis care systems both in terms of the types of crisis service available and the ways in which the system as a whole is organised. Thus far we know of no research investigating which types of service and which ways of organising the system appear most successful in terms of the key aim of avoiding admissions, especially compulsory detentions. This study therefore involves two main objectives: i) to determine the types of mental health crisis care systems at local area commissioning level (in 2019 in England these were called Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG)), and ii) to explore what characteristics of the crisis care systems are associated with mental health hospital admissions and detentions. The second objective was split into two specific objectives focused on a) whether three theoretically-derived variables describing crisis care systems (access, choice and integration) are associated with admissions and detentions, and b) exploring if any data-derived variable for the presence of specific service models and system characteristics are associated with admissions and detentions. ## Methods The study uses data from a cross-sectional national survey of mental health crisis care systems in England. Managers of CRTs were asked to provide information about services for adults within the local catchment area crisis care system (CCG). Data were collected between April 2019 and December 2019 and referred to the service configuration as provided at the beginning of April 2019. Crisis resolution team (CRT) managers were the preferred survey respondents, as they tend to be familiar with crisis services in their area. Additional respondents were approached where necessary to gain complete data about services within a local area, and respondents and NHS Trust leads were invited to check the collected data for accuracy. Descriptive results from this survey has already been published (2). ### Measures #### Crisis care system characteristics Data from the national survey in 2019 were originally collected at the level of the local CRT catchment area (CCG) (2). The national survey included items on the catchment area of the CRT and the CCG which commissioned the service. This information was used to produce variables at the CCG level. Where there were multiple CRTs for a single CCG, the data were combined. Please see supplementary material (Appendix 1) for further detail on how data were combined to produce variables at the CCG level. The variables from the national survey of crisis care in England that were used to characterise local crisis care systems are presented in Table 1. These binary variables captured information about the presence or absence of service models and about system characteristics across 195 CCGs. The service model variables capture whether various crisis services were present within the catchment area, including as crisis assessment/single point of access services, crisis phone line, psychiatric decision units, crisis cafés, and police and ambulance street triage services. The system characteristics variables provided information about the organisation and delivery of mental health care, including joint management at crisis care team level, shared staffing, voluntary sector involvement, and peer-led services. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/16/2023.03.11.23287106/T1) Table 1. Crisis Care System variables In addition, three further theoretically derived variables were considered: Access, Choice, and Integration. These variables were constructed from the service models variables and are intended to measure three specific concepts. 1) Access (scores range from 0 to 8) was based on the information about 24/7 access to crisis services, accepting self-referrals, accepting referral from other agencies, and providing a 24/7 CRT response. 2) Choice (scores range from 0 to 6) of crisis service was created by using the information on the availability of crisis cafés, crisis houses, Acute Day Units (ADUs), and crisis family placements. 3) Integration (scores range from 0 to 6) was produced with information on mental health crisis services, acute wards, and emergency services in order to capture integrative process on crisis care. Please see Appendix 1 for detailed definitions of these variables. #### Outcome variables In order to complement the information collected in the survey, Public Health England (PHE) Fingertips data were accessed (11) to obtain information on hospital admissions and detention at the CCG level. PHE Fingertips is a publicly available health dataset on service use. The two outcome variables were mental health admission and detention rates. The admissions variable was defined as the number of hospital provider spells in secondary mental health services expressed as a rate per 100,000 person years within the catchment area. The mental health detention rate variable was also expressed per 100,000 person years and defined as the number of people detained under the Mental Health Act (Adult Mental Health and Children and Young People services only). The reporting period for both outcomes variables was between 1st April 2018 and 31st March 2019. As detentions were reported quarterly, three-month totals were added together to a cumulative total for a year. The counts for mental health admissions and detentions were calculated by using the population size by CCG in 2018 (12). #### Covariates/Putative confounders used in analyses Potential covariates were also obtained for the period 2018-19 from PHE fingertips. These covariates were selected as variables where there were at least theoretical reasons to expect an influence on crisis care teams and mental health services. The selected covariates were: social deprivation (area deprivation score, adults in employment, adults in stable housing), which has been explore as a risk factor for admission and detention (13) and has been found to be related to provision of crisis alternatives e.g. crisis houses (9); psychiatric morbidity (psychosis prevalence), which has been proposed as a driver of admission and detention rates (14) and may also influence the extent and nature of community crisis care provision; area-level demographic characterstics: some groups in society (age, gender, ethnicity) may be at greater risk of admission, but face barriers to accessing community services, reducing the potential impact of community crisis services. For example, people from minority ethnic groups are at higher risk of psychiatric admission and detention, but have lower use of community services than people from White ethnic groups (15, 16); adults in contact with community services, percentage of service users with a crisis plan, as areas with well-resourced/efficient community services may have lower admission and detention rates (17). The latter two variables were selected as available indicators of the quality and reach of (non-crisis) community mental health services. The covariates were used as putative confounders in exploring relationships between crisis system characteristics and the outcome variables (hospital admission and detention rates). ### Statistical analysis Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the service models and system characteristics, outcomes, and covariates/confounders. We conducted two separate analyses to address our two objectives. 1. Latent class analysis – typologies of mental health local crisis care systems We used latent class analysis (LCA) to explore whether, based on our national survey data, a typology of crisis care systems at the CCG level could be derived. LCA is based on structural equation modelling methods and aims to classify the binary observations of a study by identifying unobserved latent classes. Several LCAs were conducted for one, two and three classes, in order to identify potential underlying patterns that could help to organise the crisis care systems into distinct categories according to service models and system characteristics. The Akaike’s Information Criteria (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC) were utilised to decide on the number of classes. These indices compared the fit of an LCA model with n classes with that of a model with n+1 classes starting with a single class. Therefore, if the addition of more classes does not improve the fit of the model there would be no evidence to support a more fine-grained categorisation (i.e. categorisations with more classes). 2. Mixed-effects negative binomial models – Characteristics of the crisis care systems and mental health hospital admissions and detentions Mixed-effects negative binomial models were fitted to study the association between service models and system characteristics with mental health hospital admissions and detentions at CCG level. The two main outcomes (mental health admissions and detentions) were counts from April 2018 to March 2019. Given the initial variables were in the form of rates per 100,000 person-years, counts of mental health admissions and detentions were calculated by multiplying the rates by the CCG resident population and then dividing by 100,000. As the CCGs were clustered within 54 NHS Trusts, a random effect for NHS Trust (random intercept) was included to account for within-trust correlation between CCG measures. In addition, the population size by CCG in 2018 was log-transformed and included as an offset variable in the models. Since the population size in 2018 was not available in four CCGs the rate per 100,000 person-year was used as count and the population size was set at 100,000 for these four CCGs. The service models of triage wards and crisis family placements were excluded from the analysis due to their small numbers within crisis care systems. First, mixed-effects negative binomial models were fitted to explore the association between each theoretically-derived variable (Access, Choice, Integration) and mental health admissions and detentions, unadjusted and adjusted for covariates (employment, accommodation, prevalence of psychosis, service users with crisis care plans, area deprivation score, contact with mental health services, black and minority ethnic groups, gender and age). Secondly, several mixed-effects negative binomial models were conducted to analyse the relationship between each service models and system characteristics, and mental health admissions and detections, unadjusted and adjusted for covariates. All analyses were performed in Stata 17. #### Ethics The 2019 survey (2), commissioned by national policy-makers to understand current service provision, met national guidelines for a service evaluation and therefore did not require review from an ethics committee (18). Survey respondents were sent an information sheet and invitation email, and consented to take part by participating in the survey. We consulted Noclor, the research support service overseeing research governance for several NHS Trusts in North London, to confirm it was appropriate to treat this study as a service evaluation. This paper from our research team reports additional analyses using survey data and publicly available data from NHS Fingertips, for which no additional ethical review is required. ## Results The summary of the frequency of service models and systems characteristics are presented in Table 2. Those service models most frequently found in CCGs were police street triage (65%), crisis telephone line (63%), and crisis houses (52%). Common system characteristics were integrated staffing (74%) and voluntary sector involvement (66%). There were some missing data for some variables within CCGs, ranging from 16 to 39 responses. View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/16/2023.03.11.23287106/T2) Table 2. Summary of service model and system characteristics Table 3 shows the summary statistics for the outcome variables (mental health admissions and detentions) and for the covariates. In order to provide more explanatory information, median rates of admissions and detentions per 100,000 population are included in the Table. In the analyses, counts (adjusted by population in CCGs) are used. View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/16/2023.03.11.23287106/T3) Table 3. Summary of outcomes and covariates ### What types of mental health crisis care system are there, at CCG level? The first step in the analysis involved trying to obtain a typology of mental health catchment area crisis systems. After conducting several LCA pre-specifying that the analysis should derive two and three different classes, the AIC and BIC suggested that there was no evidence that those models provide a better fit than those with only one class. The models were gradually compared to check how they fitted (i.e. one class vs two classes, two classes vs three classes). The majority of the models did not converge and the models that converged showed large variations within categories. Therefore, the resulting categories did not have a meaningful clinical interpretation in terms of potential typologies for local crisis care systems. These results are presented in the Appendix 2. ### What are the characteristics of crisis care systems associated with inpatient admissions and detentions? Further planned analysis investigated associations between i) crisis service models available in catchment areas and service use and ii) variables characterising the system as a whole (access, choice and integration) and service use. Regarding the adjusted analyses for crisis service models, it suggested the presence of a crisis telephone line may be associated to an 11.6% lower level of mental health admissions (Incidence Rate Ratio – IRR, 0.884, 95% CI 0.809 to 0.965), while the presence of a crisis café is associated with an 7.8% lower level of in mental health admissions. By contrast, having a crisis assessment team, separate fom to the home treatment team, was associated with a 12.8% higher rate in mental health admissions (IRR, 1.128, 95% CI 1.035 to 1.231). The presence of a crisis telephone line was also associated with a 15.3% lower rate of mental health detentions (IRR, 0.847, 95% CI 0.742 to 0.967). Other service models and all the system characteristics we explored were not associated with admissions and detentions. Our theoretically-derived variables – access, choice, and integration – did not show any association with admissions or detentions (Table 4). View this table: [Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/16/2023.03.11.23287106/T4) Table 4. Mixed effects negative binomial models for crisis care characteristics and mental health admissions and detentions ## Discussion The study provides exploratory findings on the association of several mental health crisis service models with mental health admissions and detentions. The presence of certain models or characteristics seemed to be related to decreasing fewer admissions s (e.g. crisis café, crisis telephone line) and detentions (e.g. crisis telephone line), whilst only having a separate crisis assessment team was apparently associated with an higher level of mental health admissions. The variables capturing the concepts of access, integration and choice were not associated with either mental health admissions or detentions. Furthermore, the analyses exploring potential categories of crisis care systems did not yield any valid typology. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that analyses the components of crisis care systems to explore whether there are the typologies of such systems, and to explore associations of system characteristics with mental health admissions and detentions. The findings from the adjusted models indicate that the presence of crisis telephone lines, such as a single point of access providing telephone triage, is associated with a lower rate in both admissions and detentions. According to a Care Quality Commission report (19), individuals experiencing a mental health crisis may benefit from crisis telephone services. However, to ensure effective delivery, it is essential to provide a service which is sensitive to-individuals and accessible out-of-hours (19). Similarly, the results of the adjusted analyses indicate that the presence of a crisis café was associated with reduced mental health admissions, but not rates of detention. Crisis cafés are alternative services to hospital emergency departments, usually provided by the voluntary sector, where individuals experiencing a crisis may obtain support and signposting to other services (2). As this is a cross-sectional study, the causal relationships here are unclear. However, such a finding would be in keeping with findings that assessment in emergency departments is disproporationately likely to lead to admission (20), suggesting that providing a potentially more acceptable and accessible alternative to attending emergency departments and diverting people from this setting may be productive in reducing admissions. This finding suggests that access to a crisis café may help avoid admission. However, further investigations of longitudinal nature are needed to confirm this possibility. Initial local evaluations of early-adopter crisis assessment teams were promising, suggesting that teams focused only on crisis assessment and not on home treatment might prevent admissions more effectively than combined crisis assessment and home treatment teams (21). Nevertheless, we found that nationally, the presence of a stand-alone crisis assessment team in the local crisis system was associated with a higher rate of mental health admissions. Our research cannot elucidate the reasons for this cross-sectional finding. A possible explanation is that separating out initial crisis assessment and crisis home treatment into separate teams and removing the “gatekeeping” of hospital admissions from the service which provides crisis home treatment, may lead to discontinuities in care and more conservative risk management. Crisis Resolution Teams, which provide both crisis assessment and home treatment, could be best placed to limit the access to hospital admissions where they are avoidable. Triage through a Crisis assessment team could in some contexts act as a barrier to prompt access to CRT support, which might also lead to an increase in admissions. Previous research has also suggested that longer opening hours (22) and better access to CRTs (1) were associated with lower admissions. However, our results did not show any significant association between access, or having a 24-hour CRT, and lower rates of mental health admissions. Furthermore, other theoretically-derived variables such as integration and choice, did not show any association with either admissions or detentions. Likewise, other service models and system characteristics did not show any association with admissions and detentions. The variables capturing the concepts of access, integration, and choice were not associated with either outcome. This was counter to our expectations, as the variables were developed by a stakeholder group to capture aspects of crisis care system functioning reflecting good practice. Lack of association might reflect imprecision in data collection (one informant often provided information on a whole system), or lack of granularity in recording variables intended to capture the functioning of a whole system. ### Limitations First, the survey data was self-reported, which could have led to some inaccuracies. PHE Fingertips data is likewise based on locally submitted data, and therefore some biases may be introduced if data was not consistently collected. The three theoretically-derived variables: choice, integration, and access were not validated, and not checked for internal consistency, which may undermine their reliability and validity. Our study only explored cross-sectional relationships between variables and one period of time. The mixed-effect negative binomial regression models were fitted to test association rather than proving causation. In this regard, we were able to adjust for some potentially important covariates, but we cannot ensure that other covariates not included in the analysis may influence the results. Also, it was not feasible to use some originally proposed outcome variables (e.g. A&E attendance) given the poor quality of the data (based on advice from NHS England). In addition, the analyses were not adjusted for multiple testing, which may increase the risk that some significant differences were due to chance. Some corrections could have been applied (e.g., Bonferroni correction). However, the main objective of the study was to explore the relationship between crisis care system characteristics and admissions and detentions for future investigations, rather than to try to establish any impact on the association between variables. Another limitation is that data were collected before the COVID-19 outbreak and many crisis care systems have been reorganised since then. Local commissioning areas in England have also been reorganised since 2019, with CCGs replaced by larger area-level Integrated Care Boards (23) ### Implications for policy, practice and research Given that our findings were exploratory, the conclusions are preliminary. However, our study does not provide evidence to support any policy recommendation for creating new crisis assessment teams, splitting the crisis assessment and crisis home treatment functions into different teams. Conversely, the positive results for a crisis telephone lines suggest that 24-hour access to crisis support may be important. Our study also provides preliminary evidence that introducing crisis cafes into local crisis care systems could potentially help to reduce admission rates. Overall, the analyses yielded few associations between what service types are included within a local crisis care system and local admissions and detentions. Investing time and money in setting up innovative new crisis services has an opportunity cost. Rather than invest in a proliferation of new crisis service models, local commissioners and service planners may be better advised to focus energies and resources on improving the quality of care in their current local crisis system, which may also help to reduce inpatient admissions (24). Further research is needed to clarify these exploratory findings. More robust methodological approaches such as longitudinal designs (i.e., time series of controlled studies) may help to reveal the association between crisis care system characteristics and mental health admissions and detentions. Additionally, this research could explore the specification of models for innovative crisis care services and development and evaluation of quality improvement programmes, such as the evaluation of crisis cafes. Other approaches investigating the psychiatric admissions and detentions, and the implementation of certain models may also help to clarify the direction of potential associations. ### Lived Experience Commentary #### Tamar Jeynes and Lizzie Mitchell We welcome this exploration into different models of crisis care – a much needed investigation. Preventing admissions is a crucial part of crisis care, but it should not be the sole focus. Measuring only admission rates does not capture the other benefits crisis care should bring, such as having human connection, helping people to manage extreme levels of distress and preventing harm to themselves, others or dying by suicide. We understand this is hard to measure, but the true effect of crisis services cannot just be judged by admissions – it needs to be what service users feel helps them at their time of need. Statistical methods provide some insight into what may work. However, the variance of the services cannot be captured. As an example, crisis houses and cafes can be NHS, Third Sector or Peer-run, each using different approaches which may at times contradict the approach of another using the same name. The finding that crisis telephone lines reduce admissions is of interest because of the wide variation of efficacy between different areas. We wondered if exceptional areas masked the failings of other areas. Mental health development begins in childhood, yet children and young people’s (CYP) services are not included in this research. To change the way services are structured, we need to change this. Children and young people’s crisis services are often structured very differently to adult services. These should be included so we can see crisis care across a continuum and assess effective structure of services. The data for this study was collected pre-covid in 2019. The pandemic has led to increased funding into crisis healthcare including research co-produced with lived experience researchers which readers could compare for changes and supporting evidence of findings. Further exploration into such research should be a priority to ensure services are improved for people at the time when they need them the most. The findings themselves are of interest beyond the scientific community and we welcome MHPRU plans to make plain English summary accessible to lay people. ## Declaration of interests NS is the director of the London Safety and Training Solutions Ltd, which offers training in patient safety, implementation solutions and human factors to healthcare organisations and the pharmaceutical industry. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. ## Funding This paper presents independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme, conducted by the NIHR Policy Research Unit (PRU) in Mental Health. NS’ research is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South London at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. NS is a member of King’s Improvement Science, which offers co-funding to the NIHR ARC South London and is funded by King’s Health Partners (Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, King’s College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust), and Guy’s and St Thomas’ Foundation. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or its arm’s length bodies, or other government departments. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors ## Author contributions All authors contributed to designing the study and revising the manuscript. All authors approved the final version. AR-G led data analysis, supported by CD-L and LS-R, and with guidance from statisticians SL and CG. AR-G drafted the manuscript with help from BLE, and subsequent review from all authors. SJ and BLE managed the project. ## Data availability De-identified data are available from the authors on reasonable request. ## Acknowledgement Thank you to Lizzie Mitchell and Tamar Jeynes, two members of the NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit Lived Experience Working Group, who wrote a Lived experience Commentary to accompany this paper, providing an unmediated reflection on the paper from the perspective of two researchers with first-hand experience of mental distress and using mental health services. ## Appendix 1 Access, Choice, Integration (theoretically derived variables) ### Scoring rules Note: Each variable is first scored at the CRT-level before being transformed to the CCG-level according to the following rules. 1. When coded at the CRT-level, variables were scored as missing where insufficient data were available to establish whether a score of 0, 1 or 2 was achieved 2. All variables score zero if they do not score one or two and are not missing 3. The Domain total = missing if any of the variables scoring on to the domain are missing 4. At the CCG-level score each variable if data are available for at least 50% of CRTs serving this CCG – otherwise count as missing 5. Each criterion as met if at least 50% of CRTs which provided data for this CCG meet the criterion View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/16/2023.03.11.23287106/T5) Table 1: Domain 1: Access (Total score 0-8) View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/16/2023.03.11.23287106/T6) Table 2: Domain 2: Choice (Total score 0-6) View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/16/2023.03.11.23287106/T7) Table 3: Domain 3: Integration (Total score 0-6) ## Appendix 2 Summary of Latent Class Analysis for Crisis Care Teams Project CRT 24/7; Crisis assessment; Crisis café; Crisis house (Missing= 29) View this table: [Table8](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/16/2023.03.11.23287106/T8) * Received March 11, 2023. * Revision received March 11, 2023. * Accepted March 16, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1.Lloyd-Evans B, Johnson S. Community alternatives to inpatient admissions in psychiatry. World Psychiatry. 2019; 18(1): 31–2. 2. 2.Dalton-Locke C, Johnson S, Harju-Seppänen J, Lyons N, Sheridan Rains L, Stuart R, et al. Emerging models and trends in mental health crisis care in England: a national investigation of crisis care systems. BMC Health Services Research. 2021; 21(1). 3. 3.Farrelly S, Brown G, Rose D, Doherty E, Henderson RC, Birchwood M, et al. What service users with psychotic disorders want in a mental health crisis or relapse: thematic analysis of joint crisis plans. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology. 2014; 49(10): 1609–17. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00127-014-0869-1&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24691492&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F16%2F2023.03.11.23287106.atom) 4. 4.Bowers L, Chaplin R, Quirk A, Lelliott P. A conceptual model of the aims and functions of acute inpatient psychiatry. Journal of Mental Health. 2009; 18(4): 316–25. 5. 5.Holgersen KH, Pedersen SA, Brattland H, Hynnekleiv T. A scoping review of studies into crisis resolution teams in community mental health services. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 2022: 1–10. 6. 6.Johnson S. Crisis resolution and home treatment teams: an evolving model. Advances in Psychiatric treatment. 2013; 19(2): 115–23. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImFwdHJjcHN5Y2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMTkvMi8xMTUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wMy8xNi8yMDIzLjAzLjExLjIzMjg3MTA2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 7. 7.Morant N, Davidson M, Wackett J, Lamb D, Pinfold V, Smith D, et al. Acute day units for mental health crises: a qualitative study of service user and staff views and experiences. BMC psychiatry. 2021; 21(1): 1–12. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/S12888-021-03261-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F16%2F2023.03.11.23287106.atom) 8. 8.Johnson S, Nolan F, Pilling S, Sandor A, Hoult J, McKenzie N, et al. Randomised controlled trial of acute mental health care by a crisis resolution team: the north Islington crisis study. Bmj. 2005; 331(7517): 599. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMzEvNzUxNy81OTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wMy8xNi8yMDIzLjAzLjExLjIzMjg3MTA2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 9. 9.Johnson S, Gilburt H, Lloyd-Evans B, Osborn DP, Boardman J, Leese M, et al. In-patient and residential alternatives to standard acute psychiatric wards in England. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2009; 194(5): 456–63. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImJqcHJjcHN5Y2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiMTk0LzUvNDU2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDMvMTYvMjAyMy4wMy4xMS4yMzI4NzEwNi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 10. 10.Osborn D, Lamb D, Canaway A, Davidson M, Favarato G, Pinfold V, et al. Acute day units in non-residential settings for people in mental health crisis: the AD-CARE mixed-methods study. Health Services and Delivery Research. 2021; 9(18): 1–122. 11. 11.PHE PHE. Public Health England. Fingertips: Technical Guidance.: 2022. 12. 12.NHS England. Technical Guide to CCG Allocations 2019-20 to 2023/24: Spreadsheet files for CCG allocations 2019-20 to 2023/24. 2019. 13. 13.Walker S, Mackay E, Barnett P, Rains LS, Leverton M, Dalton-Locke C, et al. Clinical and social factors associated with increased risk for involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2019; 6(12): 1039–53. 14. 14.Sheridan Rains L, Weich S, Maddock C, Smith S, Keown P, Crepaz-Keay D, et al. Understanding increasing rates of psychiatric hospital detentions in England: development and preliminary testing of an explanatory model. BJPsych Open. 2020; 6(5). 15. 15.Mohan R, McCrone P, Szmukler G, Micali N, Afuwape S, Thornicroft G. Ethnic differences in mental health service use among patients with psychotic disorders. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology. 2006; 41(10): 771–6. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00127-006-0094-7&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16847582&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F16%2F2023.03.11.23287106.atom) 16. 16.Maconick L, Sheridan Rains L, Jones R, Lloyd-Evans B, Johnson S. Investigating geographical variation in the use of mental health services by area of England: a cross-sectional ecological study. BMC health services research. 2021; 21(1): 1–10. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12913-021-06531-z&link_type=DOI) 17. 17.Weich S, McBride O, Twigg L, Keown P, Cyhlarova E, Crepaz-Keay D, et al. Variation in Compulsory Psychiatric In-Patient Admission in England: A Cross-Sectional, Multilevel Analysis. Health Services and Delivery Research. 2014. 18. 18.Council MR. Is my study research? 2017. 19. 19.CQC. Right here, right now–help, care and support during a mental health crisis. Care Quality Commission, 2015. 20. 20.Cotton M-A, Johnson S, Bindman J, Sandor A, White IR, Thornicroft G, et al. An investigation of factors associated with psychiatric hospital admission despite the presence of crisis resolution teams. BMC psychiatry. 2007; 7(1): 1–11. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-244X-7-1&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17214899&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F16%2F2023.03.11.23287106.atom) 21. 21.Trust NTaWNF. Sunderland and South of Tyne Initial Response Team. 2013. 22. 22.Wheeler C, Lloyd-Evans B, Churchard A, Fitzgerald C, Fullarton K, Mosse L, et al. Implementation of the Crisis Resolution Team model in adult mental health settings: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2015; 15(1). 23. 23.NHS England, NHS Improvement. 2022/23 priorities and operational planning guidance. In: NHS England [www.englandnhsuk/publication/2022-23-priorities-and-operational-planning-guidance](http://www.englandnhsuk/publication/2022-23-priorities-and-operational-planning-guidance). NHS England, 2021. 24. 24.Lloyd-Evans B, Osborn D, Marston L, Lamb D, Ambler G, Hunter R, et al. The CORE service improvement programme for mental health crisis resolution teams: results from a cluster-randomised trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2020; 216(6): 314–22