Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T05:59:52.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How to interpret different results for CRHTT data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Dieneke Hubbeling
Affiliation:
South West London & St George's Mental Health NHS Trust, UK. Email: dieneke@doctors.org.uk
Keelyjo Hindhaugh
Affiliation:
Wandsworth Crisis and Home Treatment Team, UK
Robert Bertram
Affiliation:
Wandsworth Crisis and Home Treatment Team, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2011 

Jacobs & Barrenho Reference Jacobs and Barrenho1 used the same data as Glover et al Reference Glover, Arts and Babu2 when they were comparing admissions in primary care trusts with and without crisis resolution and home treatment teams (CRHTTs). However, they employed different methods for their analysis and reached conflicting conclusions. According to Jacobs & Barrenho, the introduction of CRHTTs did not have a statistically significant influence on the number of admissions, while Glover et al found a significant reduction especially for CRHTTs which offered a 24-hour service.

In their article, Jacobs & Barrenho Reference Jacobs and Barrenho1 do report a reduction in admissions (e.g. Fig. 4) but state that it was not statistically significant. They do not mention power calculations. There were usable data available from 229 primary care trusts (PCTs) and the authors conducted various complex analyses by using a number of control factors and by studying trends over time. It could be that their lack of statistically significant findings is because of a lack of power. If this is the case, there is no fundamental difference between their findings and the previous analysis. Reference Glover, Arts and Babu2

At the end of their article, the authors make the suggestion that perhaps data should be analysed at the level of CRHTTs and not at the level of PCTs, given that there is huge variation between CRHTTs. We concur with that suggestion and we would like to go even further and suggest that future studies look at the service actually provided to individual patients in terms of how many visits are undertaken over a specified number of days. This information is readily available from most electronic notes systems. Further study is needed to investigate the types of interventions provided, such as whether medication was prescribed and administered, whether specific psychological treatments were offered, and so on. The availability of such data will allow an informed decision to be made about what is required to avoid admission to hospital and whether a CRHTT is the best organisational format to deliver that care.

References

1 Jacobs, R, Barrenho, E. Impact of crisis resolution and home treatment teams on psychiatric admissions in England. Br J Psychiatry 2011; 199: 71–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Glover, G, Arts, G, Babu, KS. Crisis resolution/home treatment teams and psychiatric admission rates in England. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 189: 441–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.