Abstract
Aims and MethodThis survey set out to profile the case-loads of assertive outreach teams in North East England, to discover whether they were reaching the people for whom they were meant. A survey of case-loads of 29 assertive outreach teams was carried out using the MARC-2, HoNOS and GAS instruments. Findings were compared with earlier surveys of the case-loads of community mental health teams in parts of the same region.ResultsClients of assertive outreach teams proved to be at the more severe end of the spectrum on almost every measure: 95% were deemed ‘psychotic’ and 30% had three or more admissions in the previous 2 years.ConclusionsAssertive outreach teams in the North East are reaching the people they are meant to target. The effects of this shift on existing teams remain to be evaluated.
Highlights
This study describes the case-loads of 29 assertive outreach teams in 12 trusts in the North East of England
As a model for the delivery of mental health services in the community, assertive outreach is based on evidence gathered mainly in the USA about assertive community treatment
In the Pan-London Assertive Outreach Study, Wright et al (2003) explored fidelity to the model in London teams, and Billings et al (2003) have reported on the differences between the experiences of staff working in assertive outreach compared with community mental health teams (CMHTs) as part of the same study
Summary
A consortium of providers and researchers in the former Northern and Yorkshire Health Region met in October 2000 to explore common needs for research concerning the development of assertive outreach in the region. All trusts were invited to contribute funding to the enterprise and, without exception, those approached did so. The resulting study design included a survey of case-loads using the Matching Resources to Care-2 (MARC-2; Huxley et al, 2000), Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS; Wing et al, 1998) and Global Assessment Scale (GAS; Endicott et al, 1976). The MARC-2 generates an 18point summary score of severity and risk, called M3, and contains a number of items that relate directly to service use history and risk, which are directly comparable to the Policy Implementation Guide criteria
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
