ArticleBMC psychiatry2021
Fidelity to an evidence-based model for crisis resolution teams: a cross-sectional multicentre study in Norway.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Introduction of home-based mobile specialist psychiatric nursing teams: Experiences of mental healthcare professionals.International journal of mental health systems · 2026Article
- Effect of crisis resolution team treatment on crisis experience and crisis coping: a multicenter pre-post study in Norway.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Can a crisis resolution team replace an inpatient ward? Results from a French quasi-experimental study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Implementation of a crisis resolution team service improvement programme: a qualitative study of the critical ingredients for success.International journal of mental health systems · 2024Article
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness of peer-supported self-management for people discharged from a mental health crisis team: methodological challenges and recommendations.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Acute psychiatric care: approaches to increasing the range of services and improving access and quality of care.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2022Article
- Acute psychiatric care: the need for contextual understanding and tailored solutions.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2022Article
- Continuity of care and therapeutic relationships as critical elements in acute psychiatric care.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2022Article
- Accessibility and interventions of crisis resolution teams: a multicenter study of team practices and team differences in Norway.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- Similarities and differences between service users' and carers' experiences of crisis resolution teams in Norway: a survey.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCrisis resolution teams (CRTs) are specialized multidisciplinary teams intended to provide assessment and short-term outpatient or home treatment as an alternative to hospital admission for people experiencing a mental health crisis. In Norway, CRTs have been established within mental health services throughout the country, but their fidelity to an evidence-based model for CRTs has been unknown.
methodsWe assessed fidelity to the evidence-based CRT model for 28 CRTs, using the CORE Crisis Resolution Team Fidelity Scale Version 2, a tool developed and first applied in the UK to measure adherence to a model of optimal CRT practice. The assessments were completed by evaluation teams based on written information, interviews, and review of patient records during a one-day visit with each CRT.
resultsThe fidelity scale was applicable for assessing fidelity of Norwegian CRTs to the CRT model. On a scale 1 to 5, the mean fidelity score was low (2.75) and with a moderate variation of fidelity across the teams. The CRTs had highest scores on the content and delivery of care subscale, and lowest on the location and timing of care subscale. Scores were high on items measuring comprehensive assessment, psychological interventions, visit length, service users' choice of location, and of type of support. However, scores were low on opening hours, gatekeeping acute psychiatric beds, facilitating early hospital discharge, intensity of contact, providing medication, and providing practical support.
conclusionsThe CORE CRT Fidelity Scale was applicable and relevant to assessment of Norwegian CRTs and may be used to guide further development in clinical practice and research. Lower fidelity and differences in fidelity patterns compared to the UK teams may indicate that Norwegian teams are more focused on early interventions to a broader patient group and less on avoiding acute inpatient admissions for patients with severe mental illness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.