为经历精神健康危机的人提供危机解决小组:CORE混合方法研究方案,包括两项随机对照试验

B. Lloyd-Evans, Marina Christoforou, D. Osborn, G. Ambler, L. Marston, Danielle Lamb, O. Mason, N. Morant, S. Sullivan, C. Henderson, R. Hunter, S. Pilling, F. Nolan, R. Gray, T. Weaver, K. Kelly, Nicky Goater, A. Milton, Elaine Johnston, Kate Fullarton, M. Lean, Beth Paterson, Jonathan Piotrowski, Michael Davidson, Rebecca Forsyth, L. Mosse, M. Leverton, Puffin O’Hanlon, E. Mundy, T. Mundy, E. Brown, Sarah Fahmy, Emma Burgess, A. Churchard, C. Wheeler, Hannah Istead, D. Hindle, Sonia Johnson
{"title":"为经历精神健康危机的人提供危机解决小组:CORE混合方法研究方案,包括两项随机对照试验","authors":"B. Lloyd-Evans, Marina Christoforou, D. Osborn, G. Ambler, L. Marston, Danielle Lamb, O. Mason, N. Morant, S. Sullivan, C. Henderson, R. Hunter, S. Pilling, F. Nolan, R. Gray, T. Weaver, K. Kelly, Nicky Goater, A. Milton, Elaine Johnston, Kate Fullarton, M. Lean, Beth Paterson, Jonathan Piotrowski, Michael Davidson, Rebecca Forsyth, L. Mosse, M. Leverton, Puffin O’Hanlon, E. Mundy, T. Mundy, E. Brown, Sarah Fahmy, Emma Burgess, A. Churchard, C. Wheeler, Hannah Istead, D. Hindle, Sonia Johnson","doi":"10.3310/PGFAR07010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) seek to avert hospital admissions by providing intensive home treatment for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The CRT model has not been highly specified. CRT care is often experienced as ending abruptly and relapse rates following CRT discharge are high.\n \n \n \n The aims of CORE (Crisis resolution team Optimisation and RElapse prevention) workstream 1 were to specify a model of best practice for CRTs, develop a measure to assess adherence to this model and evaluate service improvement resources to help CRTs implement the model with high fidelity. The aim of CORE workstream 2 was to evaluate a peer-provided self-management programme aimed at reducing relapse following CRT support.\n \n \n \n Workstream 1 was based on a systematic review, national CRT manager survey and stakeholder qualitative interviews to develop a CRT fidelity scale through a concept mapping process with stakeholders (n = 68). This was piloted in CRTs nationwide (n = 75). A CRT service improvement programme (SIP) was then developed and evaluated in a cluster randomised trial: 15 CRTs received the SIP over 1 year; 10 teams acted as controls. The primary outcome was service user satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included CRT model fidelity, catchment area inpatient admission rates and staff well-being. Workstream 2 was a peer-provided self-management programme that was developed through an iterative process of systematic literature reviewing, stakeholder consultation and preliminary testing. This intervention was evaluated in a randomised controlled trial: 221 participants recruited from CRTs received the intervention and 220 did not. The primary outcome was re-admission to acute care at 1 year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included time to re-admission and number of days in acute care over 1 year of follow-up and symptoms and personal recovery measured at 4 and 18 months’ follow-up.\n \n \n \n Workstream 1 – a 39-item CRT fidelity scale demonstrated acceptability, face validity and promising inter-rater reliability. CRT implementation in England was highly variable. The SIP trial did not produce a positive result for patient satisfaction [median Client Satisfaction Questionnaire score of 28 in both groups at follow-up; coefficient 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.02 to 2.97]. The programme achieved modest increases in model fidelity. Intervention teams achieved lower inpatient admission rates and less inpatient bed use. Qualitative evaluation suggested that the programme was generally well received. Workstream 2 – the trial yielded a statistically significant result for the primary outcome, in which rates of re-admission to acute care over 1 year of follow-up were lower in the intervention group than in the control group (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; p = 0.044). Time to re-admission was lower and satisfaction with care was greater in the intervention group at 4 months’ follow-up. There were no other significant differences between groups in the secondary outcomes.\n \n \n \n Limitations in workstream 1 included uncertainty regarding the representativeness of the sample for the primary outcome and lack of blinding for assessment. In workstream 2, the limitations included the complexity of the intervention, preventing clarity about which were effective elements.\n \n \n \n The CRT SIP did not achieve all its aims but showed potential promise as a means to increase CRT model fidelity and reduce inpatient service use. The peer-provided self-management intervention is an effective means to reduce relapse rates for people leaving CRT care.\n \n \n \n The randomised controlled trials were registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47185233 and ISRCTN01027104. The systematic reviews were registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006415 and CRD42017043048.\n \n \n \n The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.\n","PeriodicalId":32307,"journal":{"name":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crisis resolution teams for people experiencing mental health crises: the CORE mixed-methods research programme including two RCTs\",\"authors\":\"B. Lloyd-Evans, Marina Christoforou, D. Osborn, G. Ambler, L. Marston, Danielle Lamb, O. Mason, N. Morant, S. Sullivan, C. Henderson, R. Hunter, S. Pilling, F. Nolan, R. Gray, T. Weaver, K. Kelly, Nicky Goater, A. Milton, Elaine Johnston, Kate Fullarton, M. Lean, Beth Paterson, Jonathan Piotrowski, Michael Davidson, Rebecca Forsyth, L. Mosse, M. Leverton, Puffin O’Hanlon, E. Mundy, T. Mundy, E. Brown, Sarah Fahmy, Emma Burgess, A. Churchard, C. Wheeler, Hannah Istead, D. Hindle, Sonia Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/PGFAR07010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) seek to avert hospital admissions by providing intensive home treatment for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The CRT model has not been highly specified. CRT care is often experienced as ending abruptly and relapse rates following CRT discharge are high.\\n \\n \\n \\n The aims of CORE (Crisis resolution team Optimisation and RElapse prevention) workstream 1 were to specify a model of best practice for CRTs, develop a measure to assess adherence to this model and evaluate service improvement resources to help CRTs implement the model with high fidelity. The aim of CORE workstream 2 was to evaluate a peer-provided self-management programme aimed at reducing relapse following CRT support.\\n \\n \\n \\n Workstream 1 was based on a systematic review, national CRT manager survey and stakeholder qualitative interviews to develop a CRT fidelity scale through a concept mapping process with stakeholders (n = 68). This was piloted in CRTs nationwide (n = 75). A CRT service improvement programme (SIP) was then developed and evaluated in a cluster randomised trial: 15 CRTs received the SIP over 1 year; 10 teams acted as controls. The primary outcome was service user satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included CRT model fidelity, catchment area inpatient admission rates and staff well-being. Workstream 2 was a peer-provided self-management programme that was developed through an iterative process of systematic literature reviewing, stakeholder consultation and preliminary testing. This intervention was evaluated in a randomised controlled trial: 221 participants recruited from CRTs received the intervention and 220 did not. The primary outcome was re-admission to acute care at 1 year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included time to re-admission and number of days in acute care over 1 year of follow-up and symptoms and personal recovery measured at 4 and 18 months’ follow-up.\\n \\n \\n \\n Workstream 1 – a 39-item CRT fidelity scale demonstrated acceptability, face validity and promising inter-rater reliability. CRT implementation in England was highly variable. The SIP trial did not produce a positive result for patient satisfaction [median Client Satisfaction Questionnaire score of 28 in both groups at follow-up; coefficient 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.02 to 2.97]. The programme achieved modest increases in model fidelity. Intervention teams achieved lower inpatient admission rates and less inpatient bed use. Qualitative evaluation suggested that the programme was generally well received. Workstream 2 – the trial yielded a statistically significant result for the primary outcome, in which rates of re-admission to acute care over 1 year of follow-up were lower in the intervention group than in the control group (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; p = 0.044). Time to re-admission was lower and satisfaction with care was greater in the intervention group at 4 months’ follow-up. There were no other significant differences between groups in the secondary outcomes.\\n \\n \\n \\n Limitations in workstream 1 included uncertainty regarding the representativeness of the sample for the primary outcome and lack of blinding for assessment. In workstream 2, the limitations included the complexity of the intervention, preventing clarity about which were effective elements.\\n \\n \\n \\n The CRT SIP did not achieve all its aims but showed potential promise as a means to increase CRT model fidelity and reduce inpatient service use. The peer-provided self-management intervention is an effective means to reduce relapse rates for people leaving CRT care.\\n \\n \\n \\n The randomised controlled trials were registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47185233 and ISRCTN01027104. The systematic reviews were registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006415 and CRD42017043048.\\n \\n \\n \\n The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":32307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Programme Grants for Applied Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Programme Grants for Applied Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/PGFAR07010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/PGFAR07010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

危机解决小组(crt)寻求通过为经历精神健康危机的人提供强化家庭治疗来避免住院。CRT模型没有被高度指定。CRT治疗通常突然结束,CRT出院后复发率很高。CORE(危机解决团队优化和复发预防)工作流程1的目标是为crt指定最佳实践模型,制定一种评估该模型遵守情况的措施,并评估服务改进资源,以帮助crt高保真地实施该模型。CORE工作流程2的目的是评估旨在减少CRT支持后复发的同行提供的自我管理计划。工作流程1基于系统回顾、全国CRT经理调查和利益相关者定性访谈,通过与利益相关者的概念映射过程开发CRT保真度量表(n = 68)。这在全国的crt中进行了试点(n = 75)。然后在随机分组试验中制定并评估了CRT服务改进计划(SIP): 15名CRT在1年内接受SIP;10个小组作为控制组。主要结果是服务用户满意度。次要结局包括CRT模型保真度、集水区住院率和工作人员幸福感。工作流程2是一个同行提供的自我管理程序,通过系统文献回顾、利益相关者咨询和初步测试的迭代过程开发。该干预在一项随机对照试验中进行了评估:从crt招募的221名参与者接受了干预,220名未接受干预。主要结局是在随访1年时再次接受急性护理。次要结局包括1年随访期间再入院时间和急性护理天数,以及4个月和18个月随访时的症状和个人恢复情况。工作流程1 - 39项CRT保真度量表显示可接受性、面效度和有希望的量表间信度。CRT在英国的实施变化很大。SIP试验在患者满意度方面没有产生积极的结果[随访时两组患者满意度问卷得分中位数为28分;系数0.97,95%置信区间(CI) -1.02 ~ 2.97]。该方案实现了模型保真度的适度提高。干预小组取得了较低的住院率和较少的住院床位使用。质量评价表明,该方案普遍受到欢迎。工作流程2——该试验在主要结局方面产生了具有统计学意义的结果,干预组在1年随访期间再次入院的急性护理率低于对照组(优势比0.66,95% CI 0.43 ~ 0.99;p = 0.044)。随访4个月时,干预组再入院时间较低,护理满意度较高。在次要结果方面,两组间没有其他显著差异。工作流程1的局限性包括主要结果样本代表性的不确定性和缺乏盲法评估。在工作流程2中,限制包括干预的复杂性,阻止明确哪些是有效的元素。CRT SIP没有实现其所有目标,但显示出潜在的前景,作为提高CRT模型保真度和减少住院服务使用的手段。同伴提供的自我管理干预是一种有效的手段,以减少复发率的人离开CRT护理。随机对照试验注册为当前对照试验ISRCTN47185233和ISRCTN01027104。系统评价注册号为PROSPERO CRD42013006415和CRD42017043048。国家卫生研究所方案应用研究补助金方案。
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
Crisis resolution teams for people experiencing mental health crises: the CORE mixed-methods research programme including two RCTs
Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) seek to avert hospital admissions by providing intensive home treatment for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The CRT model has not been highly specified. CRT care is often experienced as ending abruptly and relapse rates following CRT discharge are high. The aims of CORE (Crisis resolution team Optimisation and RElapse prevention) workstream 1 were to specify a model of best practice for CRTs, develop a measure to assess adherence to this model and evaluate service improvement resources to help CRTs implement the model with high fidelity. The aim of CORE workstream 2 was to evaluate a peer-provided self-management programme aimed at reducing relapse following CRT support. Workstream 1 was based on a systematic review, national CRT manager survey and stakeholder qualitative interviews to develop a CRT fidelity scale through a concept mapping process with stakeholders (n = 68). This was piloted in CRTs nationwide (n = 75). A CRT service improvement programme (SIP) was then developed and evaluated in a cluster randomised trial: 15 CRTs received the SIP over 1 year; 10 teams acted as controls. The primary outcome was service user satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included CRT model fidelity, catchment area inpatient admission rates and staff well-being. Workstream 2 was a peer-provided self-management programme that was developed through an iterative process of systematic literature reviewing, stakeholder consultation and preliminary testing. This intervention was evaluated in a randomised controlled trial: 221 participants recruited from CRTs received the intervention and 220 did not. The primary outcome was re-admission to acute care at 1 year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included time to re-admission and number of days in acute care over 1 year of follow-up and symptoms and personal recovery measured at 4 and 18 months’ follow-up. Workstream 1 – a 39-item CRT fidelity scale demonstrated acceptability, face validity and promising inter-rater reliability. CRT implementation in England was highly variable. The SIP trial did not produce a positive result for patient satisfaction [median Client Satisfaction Questionnaire score of 28 in both groups at follow-up; coefficient 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.02 to 2.97]. The programme achieved modest increases in model fidelity. Intervention teams achieved lower inpatient admission rates and less inpatient bed use. Qualitative evaluation suggested that the programme was generally well received. Workstream 2 – the trial yielded a statistically significant result for the primary outcome, in which rates of re-admission to acute care over 1 year of follow-up were lower in the intervention group than in the control group (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; p = 0.044). Time to re-admission was lower and satisfaction with care was greater in the intervention group at 4 months’ follow-up. There were no other significant differences between groups in the secondary outcomes. Limitations in workstream 1 included uncertainty regarding the representativeness of the sample for the primary outcome and lack of blinding for assessment. In workstream 2, the limitations included the complexity of the intervention, preventing clarity about which were effective elements. The CRT SIP did not achieve all its aims but showed potential promise as a means to increase CRT model fidelity and reduce inpatient service use. The peer-provided self-management intervention is an effective means to reduce relapse rates for people leaving CRT care. The randomised controlled trials were registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47185233 and ISRCTN01027104. The systematic reviews were registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006415 and CRD42017043048. The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.
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
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Collaborative care intervention for individuals with severe mental illness: the PARTNERS2 programme including complex intervention development and cluster RCT Developing primary care services for stroke survivors: the Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) research programme Improving the understanding and management of back pain in older adults: the BOOST research programme including RCT and OPAL cohort A casemix classification for those receiving specialist palliative care during their last year of life across England: the C-CHANGE research programme Peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health care: the ENRICH research programme
×
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