英格兰东北部儿童在危机后的表现:一项服务评估

IF 1 Q4 PSYCHIATRY Mental Health Review Journal Pub Date : 2021-02-11 DOI:10.1108/MHRJ-09-2020-0065
E. Staite, L. Howey, Clare Anderson, P. Maddison
{"title":"英格兰东北部儿童在危机后的表现:一项服务评估","authors":"E. Staite, L. Howey, Clare Anderson, P. Maddison","doi":"10.1108/MHRJ-09-2020-0065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nData shows that there is an increasing number of young people in the UK needing access to mental health services, including crisis teams. This need has been exacerbated by the current global pandemic. There is mixed evidence for the effectiveness of crisis teams in improving adult functioning, and none, to the authors’ knowledge, that empirically examines the functioning of young people following intervention from child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) crisis teams in the UK. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to use CAMHS Crisis Team data, from an NHS trust that supports 1.4 million people in the North East of England, to examine a young person's functioning following a crisis.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis service evaluation compared functioning, as measured by the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS), pre- and post-treatment for young people accessing the CAMHS Crisis Team between December 2018 and December 2019.\n\n\nFindings\nThere were 109 participants included in the analysis. ORS scores were significantly higher at the end of treatment (t(108) = −4.2046, p < 0.001) with a small effect size (d = −0.36). Sixteen (15%) patients exhibited significant and reliable change (i.e. functioning improved). A further four (4%) patients exhibited no change (i.e. functioning did not deteriorate despite being in crisis). No patients significantly deteriorated in functioning after accessing the crisis service.\n\n\nPractical implications\nDespite a possibly overly conservative analysis, 15% of patients not only significantly improved functioning but were able to return to a “healthy” level of functioning after a mental health crisis following intervention from a CAMHS Crisis Team. Intervention(s) from a CAMHS Crisis Team are also stabilising as some young people’s functioning did not deteriorate following a mental health crisis. However, improvements also need to be made to increase the number of patients whose functioning did not significantly improve following intervention from a CAMHS Crisis Team.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper evaluates a young person’s functioning following a mental health crisis and intervention from a CAMHS Crisis Team in the North East of England.\n","PeriodicalId":45687,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health Review Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How well do children in the North East of England function after a crisis: a service evaluation\",\"authors\":\"E. Staite, L. Howey, Clare Anderson, P. Maddison\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/MHRJ-09-2020-0065\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nData shows that there is an increasing number of young people in the UK needing access to mental health services, including crisis teams. This need has been exacerbated by the current global pandemic. There is mixed evidence for the effectiveness of crisis teams in improving adult functioning, and none, to the authors’ knowledge, that empirically examines the functioning of young people following intervention from child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) crisis teams in the UK. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to use CAMHS Crisis Team data, from an NHS trust that supports 1.4 million people in the North East of England, to examine a young person's functioning following a crisis.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis service evaluation compared functioning, as measured by the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS), pre- and post-treatment for young people accessing the CAMHS Crisis Team between December 2018 and December 2019.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThere were 109 participants included in the analysis. ORS scores were significantly higher at the end of treatment (t(108) = −4.2046, p < 0.001) with a small effect size (d = −0.36). Sixteen (15%) patients exhibited significant and reliable change (i.e. functioning improved). A further four (4%) patients exhibited no change (i.e. functioning did not deteriorate despite being in crisis). No patients significantly deteriorated in functioning after accessing the crisis service.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nDespite a possibly overly conservative analysis, 15% of patients not only significantly improved functioning but were able to return to a “healthy” level of functioning after a mental health crisis following intervention from a CAMHS Crisis Team. Intervention(s) from a CAMHS Crisis Team are also stabilising as some young people’s functioning did not deteriorate following a mental health crisis. However, improvements also need to be made to increase the number of patients whose functioning did not significantly improve following intervention from a CAMHS Crisis Team.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis paper evaluates a young person’s functioning following a mental health crisis and intervention from a CAMHS Crisis Team in the North East of England.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45687,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mental Health Review Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mental Health Review Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-09-2020-0065\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health Review Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-09-2020-0065","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

数据显示,英国有越来越多的年轻人需要获得心理健康服务,包括危机小组。目前的全球大流行病加剧了这一需要。关于危机小组在改善成人功能方面的有效性,有各种各样的证据,据作者所知,没有人在英国儿童和青少年心理健康服务(CAMHS)危机小组的干预下对年轻人的功能进行实证检验。因此,本文的目的是使用CAMHS危机小组数据,来自支持英格兰东北部140万人的NHS信托,以检查年轻人在危机后的功能。这项服务评估比较了2018年12月至2019年12月期间,通过结果评定量表(ORS)衡量的年轻人在接受CAMHS危机小组治疗前和治疗后的功能。研究结果共有109名参与者参与了分析。治疗结束时,ORS评分显著升高(t(108) = - 4.2046, p < 0.001),效应值较小(d = - 0.36)。16例(15%)患者表现出显著和可靠的变化(即功能改善)。另外4名(4%)患者没有表现出任何变化(即尽管处于危机状态,功能并未恶化)。没有患者在接受危机服务后功能明显恶化。尽管分析可能过于保守,但在CAMHS危机小组的干预下,15%的患者不仅显著改善了功能,而且能够在精神健康危机后恢复到“健康”的功能水平。CAMHS危机小组的干预也趋于稳定,因为一些年轻人的功能在精神健康危机后没有恶化。然而,还需要改进,以增加在CAMHS危机小组干预后功能未显着改善的患者人数。原创性/价值本文评估了英格兰东北部CAMHS危机小组在心理健康危机和干预后的年轻人的功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How well do children in the North East of England function after a crisis: a service evaluation
Purpose Data shows that there is an increasing number of young people in the UK needing access to mental health services, including crisis teams. This need has been exacerbated by the current global pandemic. There is mixed evidence for the effectiveness of crisis teams in improving adult functioning, and none, to the authors’ knowledge, that empirically examines the functioning of young people following intervention from child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) crisis teams in the UK. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to use CAMHS Crisis Team data, from an NHS trust that supports 1.4 million people in the North East of England, to examine a young person's functioning following a crisis. Design/methodology/approach This service evaluation compared functioning, as measured by the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS), pre- and post-treatment for young people accessing the CAMHS Crisis Team between December 2018 and December 2019. Findings There were 109 participants included in the analysis. ORS scores were significantly higher at the end of treatment (t(108) = −4.2046, p < 0.001) with a small effect size (d = −0.36). Sixteen (15%) patients exhibited significant and reliable change (i.e. functioning improved). A further four (4%) patients exhibited no change (i.e. functioning did not deteriorate despite being in crisis). No patients significantly deteriorated in functioning after accessing the crisis service. Practical implications Despite a possibly overly conservative analysis, 15% of patients not only significantly improved functioning but were able to return to a “healthy” level of functioning after a mental health crisis following intervention from a CAMHS Crisis Team. Intervention(s) from a CAMHS Crisis Team are also stabilising as some young people’s functioning did not deteriorate following a mental health crisis. However, improvements also need to be made to increase the number of patients whose functioning did not significantly improve following intervention from a CAMHS Crisis Team. Originality/value This paper evaluates a young person’s functioning following a mental health crisis and intervention from a CAMHS Crisis Team in the North East of England.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Understanding gender-responsive needs of girls in the Children and Young People Secure Estate (CYPSE): menstrual cycle considerations Editorial: The British and Irish group for the study of personality disorder: reflections on the 23rd annual conference The “Team Tree” Professional Tree of Life intervention: development and evaluation within the acute inpatient psychiatric setting Systematicity of receiving mental health care predicts better subjective well-being of Ukrainians during the second year of the Russian invasion Comparing service user perspectives of an early intervention in psychosis service before and during COVID-19 lockdowns: a service evaluation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1