Background: Mental health crises cause significant disruption to individuals and families and can be life-threatening. The large number of community crisis services operating in an inter-agency landscape complicates access to help. It is unclear which underpinning mechanisms of crisis care work, for whom and in which circumstances.
Aim: The aim was to identify mechanisms to explain how, for whom and in what circumstances adult community crisis services work.
Objectives: The objectives were to develop, test and synthesise programme theories via (1) stakeholder expertise and current evidence; (2) a context, intervention, mechanism and outcome framework; (3) consultation with experts; (4) development of pen portraits; (5) synthesis and refinement of programme theories, including mid-range theory; and (6) identification and dissemination of mechanisms needed to trigger desired context-specific crisis outcomes.
Design: This study is a realist evidence synthesis, comprising (1) identification of initial programme theories; (2) prioritisation, testing and refinement of programme theories; (3) focused realist reviews of prioritised initial programme theories; and (4) synthesis to mid-range theory.
Main outcome: The main outcome was to explain context, mechanisms and outcomes in adult community mental health crisis care.
Data sources: Data were sourced via academic and grey literature searches, expert stakeholder group consultations and 20 individual realist interviews with experts.
Review methods: A realist evidence synthesis with primary data was conducted to test and refine three initial programme theories: (1) urgent and accessible crisis care, (2) compassionate and therapeutic crisis care and (3) inter-agency working.
Results: Community crisis services operate best within an inter-agency system. This requires compassionate leadership and shared values that enable staff to be supported; retain their compassion; and, in turn, facilitate compassionate interventions for people in crisis. The complex interface between agencies is best managed through greater clarity at the boundaries of services, making referral and transition seamless and timely. This would facilitate ease of access and guaranteed responses that are trusted by the communities they serve.
Strengths and limitations: Strengths include the identification of mechanisms for effective inter-agency community crisis care and meaningful stakeholder consultation that grounded the theories in real-life experience. Limitations include the evidence being heavily weighted towards England and the review scope excluding full analysis of ethnic and cultural diversity.
Conclusions: Multiple interpretations of crises and diverse population needs present challenges for improving the complex pathways to help in a crisis. Inter-agency working requires clear policy guidance with local commissioning. Seamless transitions between services generate trust through guaranteed responses and ease of navigation. This is best achieved where there is inter-agency affiliation that supports co-production. Compassionate leaders engender staff trust, and outcomes for people in crisis improve when staff are supported to retain their compassion.
Future work: Further work might explore inter-agency models of crisis delivery, particularly in rural communities. Future work could focus on evaluating outcomes across crisis care provider agencies and include evaluation of individual, as well as service-level, outcomes. The implementation and effect of mental health triage could be explored further, including via telehealth. Barriers to access for marginalised populations warrant a specific focus in future research.
Study registration: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019141680.
Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Keywords: COMMUNITY; COMPASSIONATE LEADERSHIP; CRISIS CARE; CRISIS SERVICES; INTERAGENCY; MENTAL HEALTH; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; REALIST EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS; STAKEHOLDERS; THERAPEUTIC CRISIS CARE.
A mental health crisis can be traumatic for individuals and families. There are a lot of different agencies delivering crisis care. This can make getting the right help from services difficult, confusing and slow. It is not clear which services work best or who they work best for. This research explored community mental health crisis services for adults. We focused on what is working, who it is working for and in what situations it is working. Service users, carers, mental health professionals and service managers formed an ‘expert stakeholder group’ to guide the project by helping the researchers make sense of what we learned. We gathered information from research reports, other documents and interviews with experts (i.e. service users, carers, professionals, managers). We focused on three questions: How can services make sure that people in crisis can get the right help, quickly? What makes crisis care compassionate? Does it help if different crisis services work together? Community crisis services are most compassionate and effective when staff from different organisations share information. When leaders of crisis care help staff to work together across services, they find better ways to help people. Close working across teams gives professionals a better understanding of what other services do and makes it easier for them to give people the right help at the right time. When leaders are kind and supportive to staff, they feel better at work and provide better crisis care. It would be useful to explore if the most effective crisis services are the same ones that service users like best. We need to know more about mental health triage, inter-agency working and telehealth. Our project did not explore diversity, but this is an important topic to investigate.