| Crisis Resolution House > Why Do We Need One? | |
|
The notion of crisis houses may be a little difficult to comprehend if you are used to the approach currently offered by acute care. It has been recognised for many years that acute hospital care often provides little more than a ‘holding place’ and at the extreme can be damaging to the recovery process for those experiencing mental distress. Hospital environments can be experienced as harsh and oppressive for both service users and staff. They tend to offer a restricted ‘fire fighting’ approach to crisis without addressing underlying issues. A Sainsbury Centre report ‘Acute Problems’ SCMH 1998 concluded: ‘Relatively little is known about exactly who are the people who stay on acute psychiatric wards and what happens to them while they are there. There is a sense that hospital care is a black box, with people entering and leaving, and we have high but vague expectations about what happens in between’ The need for an alternative to traditional acute services is by no means a new idea and is long overdue. There is no real choice for individuals facing a crisis, which is impacting on their mental health. Network for Change currently offers services, which drastically reduce admissions by promoting self-management of crisis with support. We aim to use the same principles to expand our existing ‘Crisis Resolution’ services by developing a ‘Crisis House’. ’What
we would like to see, as part of community care are places of refuge,
of asylum in original sense. They would be small, they would be
local, they would take problems you experience on your own terms
and they would omit much of the paraphernalia that is intrinsic
to the psychiatric system.’ |
|
|
NSF Standards
Standard five of the National Service Framework for Mental Health requires that ‘each service user requiring a period of care away from their home should have timely access to an appropriate hospital bed or alternative bed or a place which is: In the least restrictive environment consistent with the need to protect them and the public. As close to home as possible. |
 |
|
‘Crisis houses can be an alternative to hospital admission under the Mental Health Act, especially where the home environment has contributed to levels of distress. A crisis house may consist of a small number of beds, often for a group with specific needs, for example, women, people from black and minority ethnic communities, or young people with a first episode of psychosis. Close liaison with the community mental health team is essential for good quality care, and access to the full range of services’ (Modern Standards and Service Models, Mental Health National Service framework (1999)). The AMHIRP (Acute Hospital Inpatient Re-provision Project.) are currently working with the Sainsbury Centre For Mental Health to look at alternative re-provision of acute services in the city and the county. So far there is a strong indication that public preference would be for more locally based dispersed community hospital settings and alternatives to acute care, such as a crisis house facility. 'Service users of the crisis services expressed high levels of satisfaction with their experience of these services, and many were able to make favourable comparisons with their experience of hospital in-patient care. Whilst there were many aspects of the crisis houses appreciated by service users, the key issue was the nature and level of interaction with staff that was made available to them. Having someone to talk to in times of crisis is a relatively simple need and not that difficult to achieve, through the development of small, local crisis services founded on an ethos of humanity and respect'.(Conclusion Mental Health Foundation report: Being There In A Crisis 2002, which looked at 8 mental health crisis services across the UK) |
|
