福祉関連職におけるMaslach Burnout Inventoryの因子構造の比較

[⇓][1]

![Figure][2] 



The outcome data for crisis resolution and home treatment have always been disappointing in that although outcomes are as good as for hospital admission, they are no better. There are now repeat users of crisis intervention services who may never have had a hospital

/pdf/crisis-resolution-and-home-treatment-in-mental-health-1bxn87nxdf.pdf

Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment in Mental Health

Evidence-based practices are effective only when implemented faithfully. This paper explicates the history, standardization, and methods for developing and validating measures of fidelity. We overviewed the past 20 years of developing fidelity measures, summarized standardization of the development procedures, and described needed psychometric assessments. Fidelity assessment has become the sine qua non of implementation, technical assistance, and research on evidence-based practices. Researchers have established standardized procedures for scale development and psychometric testing. Widescale use of fidelity measurement remains challenging. The implementation of evidence-based practice and the development and validation of fidelity measures are interdependent. International improvements of mental health care will require attention to both.

Assessing the Fidelity of Evidence-Based Practices: History and Current Status of a Standardized Measurement Methodology.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/wps.20962

Acute psychiatric care: approaches to increasing the range of services and improving access and quality of care

Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) provide treatment at home to people experiencing mental health crises, as an alternative to hospital admission. Previous UK research, based on self-report surveys, suggests that a loosely specified model has resulted in wide variations in CRTs' service delivery, organization and outcomes. A fidelity scale (developed through evidence review and stakeholder consensus) provided a means of objectively measuring adherence to a model of good practice for CRTs, via one-day fidelity reviews of UK crisis teams. Reviews included interviews with service users, carers, staff and managers, and examination of data, policies, protocols and anonymized case notes. Of the 75 teams reviewed, 49 (65%) were assessed as being moderate fidelity and the rest as low fidelity, with no team achieving high fidelity. The median score was 122 (range: 73-151; inter-quartile range: 111-132). Teams achieved higher scores on items about structure and organization, for example ease of referral, medication and safety systems, but scored poorly on items about the content of care and interventions. Despite a national mandate to implement the CRT model, there are wide variations in implementation in the UK and no teams in our sample achieved overall high fidelity. This suggests that a mandatory national policy is not in itself sufficient to achieve good quality implementation of a service model. The CRT Fidelity Scale provides a feasible and acceptable means to objectively assess model fidelity in CRTs. There is a need for development and testing of interventions to enhance model fidelity and facilitate improvements to these services.

/pdf/crisis-resolution-and-home-treatment-in-the-uk-a-survey-of-47cyy5rnod.pdf

Crisis resolution and home treatment in the UK: A survey of model fidelity using a novel review methodology

BACKGROUND: Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) offer brief, intensive home treatment for people experiencing mental health crisis. CRT implementation is highly variable; positive trial outcomes have not been reproduced in scaled-up CRT care.AimsTo evaluate a 1-year programme to improve CRTs' model fidelity in a non-masked, cluster-randomised trial (part of the Crisis team Optimisation and RElapse prevention (CORE) research programme, trial registration number: ISRCTN47185233). METHOD: Fifteen CRTs in England received an intervention, informed by the US Implementing Evidence-Based Practice project, involving support from a CRT facilitator, online implementation resources and regular team fidelity reviews. Ten control CRTs received no additional support. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction, measured by the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8), completed by 15 patients per team at CRT discharge (n = 375). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: CRT model fidelity, continuity of care, staff well-being, in-patient admissions and bed use and CRT readmissions were also evaluated. RESULTS: All CRTs were retained in the trial. Median follow-up CSQ-8 score was 28 in each group: the adjusted average in the intervention group was higher than in the control group by 0.97 (95% CI -1.02 to 2.97) but this was not significant (P = 0.34). There were fewer in-patient admissions, lower in-patient bed use and better staff psychological health in intervention teams. Model fidelity rose in most intervention teams and was significantly higher than in control teams at follow-up. There were no significant effects for other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The CRT service improvement programme did not achieve its primary aim of improving patient satisfaction. It showed some promise in improving CRT model fidelity and reducing acute in-patient admissions.Declaration of interestNone.

/pdf/the-core-service-improvement-programme-for-mental-health-34mv5pyye3.pdf

The CORE service improvement programme for mental health crisis resolution teams: results from a cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. AIMS: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. STUDY REGISTRATION: The randomised controlled trials were registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47185233 and ISRCTN01027104. The systematic reviews were registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006415 and CRD42017043048. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

https://njl-admin.nihr.ac.uk/document/download/2028902

Edward Mundy

Papers

The CORE service improvement programme for mental health crisis resolution teams: results from a cluster-randomised trial.

Crisis resolution teams for people experiencing mental health crises: the CORE mixed-methods research programme including two RCTs