Guidance for commissioners of community specialist mental health services

Guidance for commissioners of community specialist mental health services 1
Practical
mental health
commissioning
Guidance for commissioners of
community specialist
mental health services
Joint Commissioning Panel
for Mental Health
www.jcpmh.info

Joint Commissioning Panel
for Mental Health
Co-chaired by:
Membership:
www.jcpmh.info

2 Practical Mental Health Commissioning
Contents
Ten key messages
for commissioners
Introduction
04
What are
community
specialist mental
health services?
Why are
community
specialist mental
health services
important to
commissioners?
05 07
What do we
know about the
current provision
of community
specialist mental
health services?
08
What would a
good community
specialist mental
health service
look like?
09
Supporting
the delivery
of the mental
health strategy
18
References
20

Ten key messages for commissioners
1 This guide has a primary focus on
Community Mental Health Teams
(CMHTs), recognising them as the
essential component of specialist
community mental health services
that may, locally, also include Assertive
Outreach Teams and Early Intervention
Teams among others.
2 CMHTs will be part of a specialist
mental health service that includes
acute care (crisis and home treatment,
inpatients), rehabilitation, and highly
specialist teams working with specific
conditions, as well as a range of
statutory and non-statutory services
that support the delivery of care.
3 Commissioners must recognise that
people with mental disorders are entitled
to equitable, non-discriminatory access
to support and treatment in primary
care for their mental and physical needs.
These primary care services should be
supported by specialist mental health
services for those patients whose
complex needs require additional
expertise over and above that available
within primary care.
4 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs)
have the opportunity to make primary
care the hub for all mental health
care and support so as to ensure that
services are better integrated and able
to meet the spectrum of need of the
wider population, as well as of those
with severe mental health problems.
5 Existing models of specialist mental
health care delivery vary considerably
across England as a result of local
interpretation of national service
agendas over the past 20 years. No one
service model is ideal for all areas and
CCGs should consult with experts from
local mental health providers to develop
a model that best suits their local
demographics.
6 Any agreed final model of mental health
care delivery can only be as good as
the commitment of local professionals
to collaborate to deliver good quality
patient-focused care.
7 This guide advocates a wellness and
recovery approach. This involves
supporting people to live in their
communities and moving resources
(investment and skilled professionals)
towards the community component of
the mental health pathway. Delivery
of specialist community mental health
care in primary care settings enables
improved management of patient
journeys into and out of specialist care.
8 This guide is strongly supportive of the
‘Recovery Model’. Nevertheless, CCGs
should recognise that entirely new,
emerging, or evolving models in service
delivery will offer both opportunities
and risks. Any model should be
sufficiently flexible to accommodate
current thinking and evidence without
requiring wholesale reorganisation.
9 Careful attention to service
specifications and operational policies
is needed from CCGs and providers,
to ensure that the maintenance of a
functioning patient care pathway is not
made secondary to the drive to preserve
team boundaries through inclusion/
exclusion criteria. Similarly CCGs, in
commissioning services must ensure
that there is primary attention to the
way in which organisations who deliver
different components of the pathway
will be made to work together so that
patient care is not compromised.
10 Enhanced co-working and collaboration
between primary care and specialist
mental health teams, reinforced
through service specifications, can
help to minimise risk and maximise
opportunities for recovery.

The Joint Commissioning
Panel for Mental Health
(JCP-MH) (www.jcpmh.info)
is a new collaboration co-chaired
by the Royal College of General
Practitioners and the Royal
College of Psychiatrists. The
JCP-MH brings together leading
organisations and individuals
with an interest in commissioning
for mental health and learning
disabilities. These include:
• people with mental health
problems and carers
• Department of Health
• Association of Directors
of Adult Social Services
• NHS Confederation
• Mind
• Rethink Mental Illness
• National Survivor User Network
• National Involvement Partnership
• Royal College of Nursing
• Afiya Trust
• British Psychological Society
• Representatives of the English
Strategic Health Authorities
(prior to April 2013)
• Mental Health Providers Forum
• New Savoy Partnership
• Representation from
Specialised Commissioning
• Healthcare Financial
Management Association.
Introduction
The JCP-MH is part of the implementation
arm of the government mental health
strategy No Health without Mental Health1
.
The JCP-MH has two primary aims:
• to bring together people with mental
health problems, carers, clinicians,
commissioners, managers and others
to work towards values-based
commissioning
• to integrate scientific evidence, the
experience of people with mental health
problems and carers, and innovative
service evaluations in order to produce the
best possible advice on commissioning the
design and delivery of high quality mental
health, learning disabilities, and public
mental health and wellbeing services.
The JCP-MH:
• has published Practical Mental Health
Commissioning2
, a briefing on the key
values and principles for effective mental
health commissioning
• has so far published nine other guides
on the commissioning of primary mental
health care services3
, dementia services4
,
liaison mental health services to acute
hospitals5
, transition services6
, perinatal
mental health services7
, public mental
health services8
, rehabilitation services9,
drug and alcohol services10
, and forensic
.
• provides practical guidance and a
developing framework for mental health
commissioning
• will support commissioners to deliver
the best possible outcomes for community
health and wellbeing.
how will this guide help you?
This guide has been written by
a group of specialist community
mental health care experts in
participation with patients and
carers. Much is evidence-based
but ideas that are felt to be best
practice by expert consensus are
included.
By the end of this guide, readers should be
more familiar with the concept of specialist
community mental health and better
equipped to understand:
• what a good quality, modern,
specialist community mental health
service looks like
• how a good specialist community
mental health service can help deliver
the objectives of the mental health
strategy and the Quality, Innovation,
Productivity and Prevention programme
– not only in itself but also by enabling
changes in other parts of the system.

What are community specialist mental health services?
what do they do?
Community specialist mental health
services:
• work in partnership with people with
mental health problems, carers, and
primary care services
• design, implement and oversee
comprehensive packages of health
and social care
• support people whose complex mental
health needs require care over and above
what can be provided in primary care.
WHO USES THEM?
In England, almost 3% of all adults will
be accessing secondary services due to a
mental health need (this is equivalent to
54 patients from an average GP list of
around 2000 patients)12
.
These patients are likely to include:
• people with severe depression, some
anxiety disorders, psychosis (such as
schizophrenia or bipolar disorder), and
severe personality disorder
• people with complex needs (e.g. those
who are mentally ill and homeless, or
with addiction issues)
• people whose problems have proved
intractable to primary mental health care
(e.g. those with resistant depression)
• people with unusual or uncommon
conditions
• people who present a risk to themselves
or others, and whose management
is outside the competency or scope
of primary mental health care (e.g.
suicidality).
It is important, however, to note that the
unmet need for mental health interventions
will be higher than the number of people
accessing services.
HOW ARE THEY DELIVERED?
As described in the JCP publication
Guidance for commissioners of primary
mental health care services3
, “the
development of primary mental health care
has reflected a need for earlier detection of
problems, better management of chronic
illness and improved partnership working
between the patient, the extended primary
health care team and local community
support networks and providers”.
In practice, this means that the majority
of mental health care (as well as the
physical needs of patients with mental
health problems) will be delivered either
from (a) primary care alone or (b) in
the case of the above conditions, from
primary care in partnership with specialist
community mental health services.
WHAT DIFFERENT SERVICE TYPES
ARE THERE?
There is no single model of specialist
community mental health service. Instead
commissioners will need to commission:
• a core Community Mental Health Team
(CMHT)
• supported by more specialist service
components to meet local need.
CMHT
The CMHT will be a:
• multidisciplinary team
• that provides assessment and treatment
interventions
• to a defined catchment population
• with an interface with primary care
services (enabling patients with more
complex needs to ‘step up’ to the CMHT
for more specialist care, and to ‘step
down’ to primary care as the patient’s
circumstances improve)
• and which also acts as a ‘gate-keeper’
to more specialised community mental
health services.
In some parts of England, CMHTs are
known as ‘recovery teams’. However,
regardless of their label, CMHTs are
normally expected to have a skill mix
of community psychiatric nurses, social
workers, occupational therapists, clinical
psychologists, medical staff (including a
consultant psychiatrist), mental health
support workers and administrative staff.

Specialist service components
In addition to the CMHT, other specialist
services will also need to be commissioned.
As described on page 9, these include
(but are not limited to):
• assertive outreach teams (AOT)
• early intervention in psychosis teams (EIP)
• crisis response and home treatment
teams (CRHT)
• access and recovery teams
• rehabilitation services
• personality disorder teams
• services for autistic spectrum
(and other neuropsychiatric) disorders
• perinatal mental services.
The best evidence for these components
appears to support properly constituted
EIP teams, and CRHT teams13,14
.
WHAT ARE THE CORE PRINCIPLES?
The core principles of community
specialist mental health care are:
• recovery: working alongside patients
to enable them to follow their own
recovery path
• personalisation: meeting the needs
of individuals in ways that work best
for them
• co-production and partnerships:
delivering services with (rather than for)
people with mental health problems
• collaborative care: working with people
as experts in their own mental health
• promoting social inclusion
• prevention through public health
strategies and early interventions
• promotion of mental health
• pathway working: building on the
stepped care approach from primary
care and viewing mental health services
as a system rather than a series of
isolated services.
Throughout this, the General Practitioner
(GP) remains at the heart of a patient’s
care. About a third of people with serious
and enduring mental illness are managed
solely by GPs in primary care15
. Although
community specialist mental health services
may play a key role in assisting the patient’s
recovery this is likely to be time limited.
What are community specialist mental health services?

Why are community specialist mental health services
important to commissioners?
There are at least three reasons why
are important to commissioners:
1 they provide key support for primary
care services
2 they provide effective treatment for
people with complex mental health needs
3 commissioners have statutory
responsibilities to provide certain types
of community mental health services.
1 KEY SUPPORT TO PRIMARY CARE
Community specialist mental health services
are a key component of mental health
pathways, and should work in seamless
collaboration with primary mental health
care services.
Critically, this means that primary care
continues to be responsible for the
physical health and provision of medication
(including depot injections) for their
patients even when they are receiving
community specialist mental healthcare.
One consequence of such a continuing
responsibility is that concepts of ‘referral
to’ and ‘discharge from’ specialist mental
health care no longer easily apply. This is
because every patient will receive (or have
an entitlement to receive) primary care
services regardless of any specialist care
they are getting.
Within this structure, one key role of
– and the reason they are so important
to commissioners – will be to manage
interfaces with other specialist services
including child and adolescent psychiatry
services, learning disability services, older
people’s services, as well as acute inpatient
and crisis services. Significant links to other
statutory and non-statutory services will
also need to be managed.
Failure to consider and manage these
interfaces could lead to quality and
efficiency failures in the system such
as an unnecessarily increased demand
on inpatient care, or reduced capacity
to respond to emergencies and new
referrals. Commissioners may experience
such developments as increased costs
for reduced productivity.
2 EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR PEOPLE
WITH COMPLEX NEEDS
Community services can help provide
effective treatment to people with complex
needs. For example:
• CMHTs – a Cochrane review of the
value of CMHTs for people with severe
mental illness and personality disorders
concluded that they promoted greater
acceptance of treatment (than non-team
standard care), and may also be superior
in reducing hospital admission and
avoiding death by suicide16
.
• Assertive outreach – these can offer
better engagement of people with mental
health problems, especially in under-
served, hard-to-reach communities, and
higher rates of satisfaction17
. Evidence
suggests that AOTs are somewhat
better than CMHTs with crisis and home
treatment provision in (a) reducing
hospital admissions and (b) improving
clinical and social outcomes18
. This must
be balanced against the benefit of an
intensive approach to difficult-to-engage
service users with complex and risky
presentations.
• EIP – these show clinically important
benefits over standard care including
reduced use of the Mental Health Act19
,
improved engagement with treatment,
lower hospital admissions and relapse
rates20
, reduced symptom severity21
and more favourable course of illness
with a greater likelihood of remission22
and improved medication adherence23
,
increased independent living, reduced
homelessness, lower levels of substance
use, better global functioning19,24
, higher
employment rates25
, reduced suicide
rate13
, and reduced homicide risk26
• CRHT – these teams have demonstrated
considerable benefit in allowing reduction
and closure of beds27
.
These issues are discussed in more detail
on page 9.
3 COMMISSIONERS HAVE STATUTORY
RESPONSIBILITIES
It is important to recognise that community
specialist services care for a range of
severity of illness. Consequently, some
patients require care under provisions
of the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 and
the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
This places statutory responsibilities on
commissioners to ensure that services
are sufficiently staffed and resources are
available to fulfil the legal requirements
of this legislation including:
• after-care services for mental health
patients and direct payments (s117,
MHA)
• power to discharge NHS patients from
detention in independent hospitals and
authorise visits (s23/s24, MHA)
• duty to provide the courts (when
requested to) with information about
availability of hospital places (s39, MHA)
• duty to make arrangements for
independent mental health advocates
(IMHAs) to be available to qualifying
patients (s130A, MHA)
• duty to notify local social services of
availability of suitable hospital places for
emergency admissions and for under-18s
(s140, MHA)
• duty to consult an Independent Mental
Capacity Advocate (s37/s38, MCA)
• duty to maintain a list of approved
doctors (S12, MHA).

What do we know about the current provision
of community specialist mental health services?
NO STANDARD MODEL EXISTS
There is currently no standard model for the
commissioning and provision of community
specialist mental health care services.
In England, this is due to differing
interpretations over the past 30 years of
national service design. For example, the
1999 National Service Framework for
Mental Health (NSF-MH)28
prescribed a
model of “functional teams”, including
CRHT, AOTs and EIP, in addition to defining
the boundaries of primary care services and
acute inpatient provision.
Meanwhile, the 2002 advent of Primary
Care Trusts and commissioning introduced
a local perspective on health economies,
together with the recognition that some
services, derived from urban settings, did
not translate fully into all localities.
It is recognised, therefore, that the
challenges of delivering good quality
community mental health services will vary
according to the way in which services have
developed locally. Regardless of the local
‘model’ of delivery, it is essential that all
specialist community mental health services
work within a set of key guiding principles.
INDICATORS OF PROBLEMS
Signs that current specialist community
mental health services are not working
well include:
• the primary-secondary care interface is
perceived as not working and is failing
to meet patient need
• rigid boundaries exist between different
parts of the service that enforce
inclusion/exclusion criteria without
considering (a) the needs of the person
or (b) joint-working such as:
– between different parts of the same
service (crisis, home treatment,
assertive outreach, inpatients, EIP,
community mental health/recovery
teams)
– between different services (child and
adolescent, learning disability, adult,
older people, substance misuse)
– with other service providers (social
services, primary care, non-statutory
sector)
• no working policy or protocol exists to
manage inter-service disagreements on
provision of care
• not all patients have an up-to-date care
plan and know their care-co-ordinator,
and not all have a diagnosis/formulation
and receive appropriate evidence-based
treatments
• there is no systematic process for
allocating to appropriate care pathways
– access to treatment, particularly tertiary
specialist treatment is variable and
inequitable across the service
• medication is over-used as there are
no alternative options
• the service lacks the capacity to
undertake psychological therapy with
patients with personality disorder and/or
those with psychosis
• waiting times for access to initial referral
are excessive according to national
criteria
• rates of admission and delayed discharge
from inpatients are high because it is
not possible to discharge to community
services in a timely fashion – crisis
teams are overwhelmed by demands
for urgent assessments from GPs who
cannot obtain timely assessments from
standard referrals
• there is lack of understanding of how
collaborative care works and the shared
care arrangements between primary and
secondary care are poorly defined or
not operated – GPs, for example, do not
have the confidence to manage patients
with stable psychosis as they fear they
would not receive prompt and smooth
‘re-access’ to services in the event of crisis
• caseloads are excessive and patients
have access only to a single team
member as care co-ordinator so that true
multidisciplinary working is not attained
for the majority
• psychiatrists have large outpatient clinics
in which many stable patients have
routine appointments re-booked thus
preventing easy access for patients who
need active medical involvement
• ‘New Ways of Working’ remains an
ambition rather than a strategy through
which all patients’ care is owned by the
entire team
• there is an inconsistent assessment of
the impact of mental illness on a patient’s
capacity to work, their family life, and
wider relationships
• social inclusion is an aspiration rather
than an embedded strategy informing
all service interventions
• those indicators listed in the JCP guide
for primary mental health services3
.

What would a good community specialist
mental health service look like?
When commissioning a ‘good’ community
specialist mental health service, at least
five key issues should be considered:
A core purpose
B service overview
C service components
D service standards
E service outcomes
A CORE PURPOSE
The essence of community specialist
mental health care is the ability to:
• provide a single multidisciplinary
assessment process, and treatment
through integrated health and social care
• provide ready access to a range of
evidence-based physical, psychological
and social interventions (with these
being organised to put the recovery
needs of the patient at their heart)
• avoid patients being subjected to
multiple assessments at service interfaces
• operate on an equitable, non-
discriminatory and patient-centred basis.
Underpinning principles
The other underpinning principles of
specialist community mental health care
are that it is:
• capable
• outcome-focused
• founded on a recovery-based approach
• recognises the personalisation agenda
• and operates with collaborative care,
prevention and pathway-working at the
centre of all its activities.
B SERVICE OVERVIEW
Commissioners should consider:
• the core Community Mental Health
Team
• other specialist community services
(to support the CMHT and primary care)
• the integrated care pathway
(stepped care)
The CMHT
There is no single or ‘optimum’ model
of community specialist mental health
service. Instead, a core CMHT will need
to be commissioned, which is then
supported by the commissioning of
a range of more specialist service
components to meet local need.
The CMHT will be based on a generalist
multidisciplinary team that provides
assessment and treatment interventions,
that are compatible with current evidence-
based guidance, to a defined catchment
population.
The CMHT will have an interface with
primary care services from which patients
will usually be referred (see ‘stepped care’
on page 10). All referrals should usually
be assessed by experienced clinicians and
allocated to an appropriate care pathway
(see page 14).
Where patients have physical health care
needs, the CMHT will also facilitate access
to primary services.
In some parts of England, CMHTs are
sometimes known as ‘recovery services’.
However, regardless of their label, CMHTs
are normally expected to have a skill mix
of community psychiatric nurses, social
workers, occupational therapists, clinical
psychologists, medical staff (including
consultant psychiatrist), mental health
support workers and administrative staff.
Other specialist services
In addition to the CMHT, other (more)
specialist services should also be
commissioned to provide community-
based care. Some of these services
are often referred to as the product of
a ‘functional split’ in a patient’s care
pathway. This is where separate specialist
teams or services provide different
‘functions’. Arising with the development
of services such as crisis response, assertive
outreach, and early intervention teams
(as prescribed by the NSF-MH), some
services have split functions even further.
Described later in this section, these
services include:
• CMHTs
• AOTs
• EIP teams
• CRHT teams
• access and recovery teams
• rehabilitation services
• personality disorder services
• services for autistic spectrum and other
neuropsychiatric disorders
• perinatal mental health.
The best evidence for these components
appears to support properly constituted
EIP13
and CRHT14
.

Integrated care pathway
The ‘stepped care’ model describes
how care pathways can be integrated
to support a patient’s journey through
a range of often increasingly specialised
services. Summarised in Box 1, the stepped
care model is also described (from a
primary care perspective) in the JCP guide
on primary mental health care services3
.
Step 3
In the ‘stepped care’ model, the role
of specialist community mental health
services begins within Step 3 (at a point
sometimes referred to as ‘Step 3.5’). Here,
specialist services will expect to become
involved with patients whose (a) social
care needs or (b) needs for high intensity
psychological therapy/complex medication
regimes cannot be met in primary care.
For example, a person with bipolar
disorder who has had good support from
her CMHT, is well engaged with her care
plan, is compliant with medication, and
has a stable home environment with long
periods of being well and a crisis plan to
be activated in the event of relapse, could
be supported (within Step 3) through
primary care.
By contrast, the same patient with bipolar
disorder who becomes estranged from her
family, is at risk of homelessness, is in debt,
struggling with insight into her illness and
poorly compliant with treatment, will need
support at this period of her illness from
specialist mental health services and would
fall within ‘Step 3.5’.
Importantly, in this way, people with
severe and enduring mental health
problems obtain their usual support
from primary care, but may require
specialist input (to a greater or lesser
degree) depending upon their individual
circumstances.
Step 4
During periods where a patient has severe
and unstable mental health needs, the
stepped care approach described above
continues through to Step 4 (specialist
mental health care including intensive and
extended therapies).
Throughout the stepped care model,
patients should be cared for in the
expectation that their care will allow them
to ‘step down’ to less intensive support as
their circumstances improve. This can form
a basis for local outcome measures.
C SERVICE COMPONENTS
This section describes in more detail
some of the service components that
commissioners should consider.
CMHTs
CMHTs work with two broad groups
of patients (whose ages are determined
within local protocols for transition from
child and adolescent services6,29
and
decisions around non-organic mental
disorders in later life):
• the first patient group will comprise
of people with conditions that require
time-limited interventions of weeks or
months, with discharge on completion
of the intervention
• the second patient group will require
ongoing treatment, and care and
monitoring for prolonged periods,
but should be managed within the
recovery model with an expectation
of eventually improved functioning to
allow discharge. This group will also
have the complications of severe and
enduring mental disorders including
psychosis and personality disorder,
where there is a substantial risk of harm
to the individual or others. They may
be poorly concordant with treatment,
difficult to engage and/or subject to
conditions of the Mental Health Act,
including forensic mental health service
interventions. Many of the second group
will be managed by other specialist
teams such as assertive outreach.
CMHTs fulfil the following functions:
• interface with primary care – including
discussion of new patients, advice and
support
• assessment and allocation – referrals
will (a) usually come from primary
care (where they may have been
triaged); (b) be assessed and allocated
to an appropriate care pathway (as
the quality of information and referral
may vary; see page 14), and (c) carry
the expectation that new patients will
be seen within 28 days by experienced
clinicians with appropriate competencies
and experience (to ensure good quality
diagnosis/formulation
• Care Programme Approach – each
patient will receive care consistent with
CPA best practice guidance3
• multidisciplinary team work – supported
by weekly meetings enabling discussion
and coordination of joint care and can
be extended to provide supervision for,
and linkages with, primary care
• caseload management – the team
caseload is ‘owned’ by the whole team
and cross-cover/multidisciplinary input is
available accordingly
• training – specialist community mental
health teams offer a valuable forum
for training the next generation of
professionals (this should be accepted
by commissioners, and allowed for in
staffing profiles)
What would a good community specialist mental health service look like?

Step 1
Step one includes supported
self-management of
psychological and emotional
wellbeing, social prescribing,
peer experts and mentors,
health trainers, psychological
wellbeing practitioners
trained in cognitive
behavioural treatments for
people with mild to moderate
anxiety and depression, and
access to e-mental health
services such as on-line peer
support groups.
box 1: Stepped care model
Step 2
Step two comprises co-
ordinated care involving
the primary care team, and
includes provision of low
intensity therapies and links
to employment support,
carer support and other
social support services. Many
patients will be supported
well by an individual clinician
– most commonly a GP, but
it could be a practice nurse, a
health visitor, a psychological
wellbeing practitioner or a
counsellor.
Step 3
Step three comprises high
intensity psychological
therapies and/or medication
for people with more
complex needs (moderate
to severe depression or
anxiety disorders, psychosis,
and co-morbid physical
health problems)30-32
. Initial
treatment should be NICE-
recommended psychological
therapy delivered by a
high intensity worker,
and/or medication. For
people with moderate to
severe depression whose
symptoms do not respond
to these interventions,
NICE recommends a multi-
professional collaborative
care approach37
.
IAPT services for ‘Serious
Mental Illness’ (which include
people with diagnoses of
psychosis or bipolar disorder
who are currently excluded
from other forms of existing
IAPT services) are currently
being piloted. The reports on
the pilots will provide further
guidelines for commissioners.
Step 4
Step four comprises
specialist mental health care,
including extended and
intensive therapies. Well
understood pathways must
be in place between the
primary care mental health
team, Improving Access
to Psychological Therapies
(IAPT) services and specialist
mental health services.
Specialist mental health
teams may operate across
several practices, in which
case each practice could have
a practice-affiliated specialist
team member (for instance
a community psychiatric
nurse) with whom the
primary care mental health
team can work. Specialist
mental health care can be
provided in a primary care
setting so primary care staff
can access expertise without
the need for cumbersome
referral processes and the
stigmatisation that sometimes
affects patients in secondary
care settings.

• leadership – clear clinical leadership
and management should be established
which crosses the disciplines
• review – regular clinical review of
outcomes
• choice of interventions – the provision
of a range of high quality evidence-
based physical and social interventions,
and psychological therapies
• access to physical health care –
facilitation of access to primary care
for those with severe and enduring
mental illness
• family and carer support – including
an annual carer’s assessment and
support to meet identified needs
• relapse planning – this should include
advance statements, as well as any
wellbeing or recovery action plan (e.g.
Wellness Recovery Action Plan).
In a CMHT, each full-time care co-
ordinator will have a maximum caseload
of 35 patients with adjustments based
upon complexity, local demographics,
and the availability of other functional
teams to support the patient33
.
CMHTs would normally be expected to
have a skill mix of community psychiatric
nurses, social workers, occupational
therapists, clinical psychologists, medical
staff (including a consultant psychiatrist),
mental health support workers and
administrative staff.
Mental disorders usually managed by these
teams are covered by parts of the NICE
guidelines for anxiety disorders (CG113,
CG31, CG26), depression (CG90, CG91),
bipolar disorders (CG38), schizophrenia
(CG82), personality disorders (CG77,
CG78), eating disorders (CG9), self-harm
(CG16, CG133), antenatal and postnatal
mental health (CG45) and dual diagnosis
(CG120) (see www.nice.org.uk)34-47
.
Highly specialist areas of these guidelines
will be delivered by specialist teams
interfacing with CMHTs.
Assertive outreach teams
Assertive outreach teams were established
under the NSF-MH to provide focused,
intensive mental health and social care
to patients with challenging, complex
presentations who do not engage with
CMHTs. They offer better engagement
of people with mental health problems,
especially in under-served, hard-to-
reach communities, and higher rates of
satisfaction17
. Evidence suggests that they
work somewhat better than CMHTs with
crisis and home treatment in reducing
hospital admissions, clinical and social
outcomes despite having smaller team
caseloads18
. This must be balanced against
the benefit of an intensive approach to
difficult-to-engage people with complex
and risky presentations.
In rural areas, where qualifying patients
are likely to be sparsely distributed over
a large geographical area, the assertive
outreach function can be delivered by
intensive case management (ICM).
ICM evolved from two original community
models of care, Assertive Community
Treatment (ACT) and Case Management
(CM), where ICM emphasises the
importance of small caseload and high
intensity input. Specialist clinicians within
the CMHT provide intensive input into a
caseload of no more than 15 cases48
.
Alternatively, within the Dutch Functional
Assertive Community Treatment model49
,
assertive outreach-augmented CMHTs
replicate an assertive outreach and crisis
resolution functions to 10-20% of the
caseload at any given time with the rest
receiving a traditional case management
approach directed by individual care
coordinators. A recent Cochrane review
of ICM50
concluded that compared to
standard care, ICM reduced hospitalisation
and increased retention in care. It also
improved social functioning globally.
Early intervention in psychosis
Proponents of early intervention have
argued that outcomes might be improved
if more therapeutic efforts were focused
on the early stages of schizophrenia, or on
people with prodromal symptoms (early
symptoms that might precede the onset of
a mental illness).
Early intervention in schizophrenia has two
elements that are distinct from standard
care: early detection and phase-specific
treatment (phase-specific treatment is a
psychological, social or physical treatment
developed, or modified, specifically for
use with people at an early stage of the
illness). An important outcome goal for
EIP is reducing the duration of untreated
psychosis.
Early intervention in psychosis teams work
alongside CMHTs, accepting younger
patients in their first episode of psychosis
and working with them for up to 3 years.
They overlap with CAMHS services at their
lower age range and take referrals from
school and youth groups as well as from
primary care. Patients may also be passed
to EIP after assessment within the CMHT.
There is strong evidence that this form of
intervention is cost-effective21
, and also
much valued by patients and carers51
.
The EIP team will aspire to discharge the
majority of its patients to primary care
but some may need further work from a
CMHT or AO service at the conclusion of
their work in EIP.

EIP shows clinically important benefits over
standard care including:
• reduced use of the Mental Health Act19
• improved engagement with treatment,
lower hospital admissions and relapse
rates20
• reduced symptom severity21
and more
favourable course of illness and greater
likelihood of remission22
• improved medication adherence23
• increased independent living, reduced
homelessness, lower levels of substance
abuse and better global functioning19,24
• higher employment rates
• reduced suicide rate13
• reduced homicide risk26
.
These benefits translate into savings of
£17.97 for each pound spent on EIP
services8
. However a recent Cochrane
Review52
was less positive about the
longer-term effects of EIP. The authors
found emerging, but as yet inconclusive,
evidence to suggest that people in the
prodrome or early stages of psychosis
can be helped by some interventions.
However, there is a question of whether
any gains are maintained. There is some
support for phase-specific treatment
focused on employment and family
therapy, but again, this needs replicating
with larger and longer trials.
Interface with acute services: crisis
response and home treatment
It is probably easiest for commissioners
to think of acute services as comprising
traditional inpatients and home treatment,
where a patient is managed at home as
an alternative to admission. The basic
criteria for both interventions are the
same with (a) the suitability of the home
environment and (b) the capacity of
the home treatment team to keep the
patient safe and persuade them to accept
treatment being the principal issues
on which a decision to admit will be
based. At a point where risk issues or the
intensity of care required moves beyond
the resources of the CMHT, they refer
to the CRHT team who make a decision
between home treatment and admission,
involving the patient and family in the
process. All patients thought to require
admission are referred to the CRHT team
who act as gatekeepers for usage and to
maintain care as near to a patient’s home
environment as possible. CRHT teams
have demonstrated considerable benefit
in allowing reduction and closure of beds.
Some services are also commissioned to
provide ‘crisis houses’
or specialist day care as alternatives to
acute admission27
.
Access and recovery teams
As noted earlier, the division of a care
pathway into different and separate
services that provide different functions
(the ‘functional split’) has resulted in a
range of service models. In addition to
crisis response and assertive outreach,
other teams have been developed with
highly specific functions. These include,
for example, ‘access teams’ (which provide
triage for new referrals and, possibly,
short-term psychological interventions),
and ‘recovery teams’ (which provide
focused, time-limited longer-term care
within the recovery model). There is
currently no evidence base to support
or refute the access/recovery split as a
useful approach.
Rehabilitation services
Around 10% of people entering mental
health services will have particularly
complex needs that cannot be met by
general adult mental health services and
may require rehabilitation and intensive
support from mental health services over
many years9
. Rehabilitation services focus
on addressing and minimising symptoms
and functional impairment and supporting
people to achieve as much autonomy and
independence as possible. In order to do
this a graduated approach is required,
supported by a care pathway that provides
a range of treatment and support settings
to facilitate and enable recovery on an
individualised basis. These services are
described in detail in the JCP-MH guidance
on rehabilitation services for people with
complex mental health needs9
.
Personality disorder services
Historically, people with personality
disorders had inconsistent input from
specialist mental health services and
the diagnosis was often used as a label
to exclude them from care. Personality
disorder comes with a variety of challenges
that can be addressed at all levels of
primary care and specialist services
through evidence-based interventions42
.
These generic services should be
supported through the development of
multidisciplinary teams with specialist
knowledge so that a consistent clinical
model can be offered and generic teams
supported in engaging those people who
can significantly challenge health and
social care services. Collaboration with the
patient and with other services (including
the GP and third sector organisations)
will involve the development of
multidisciplinary care plans which will
include the means of accessing services in
time of crisis.
Autistic spectrum disorder and
other neuropsychiatric disorders
People with autistic spectrum disorder
(ASD) can encounter difficulties in
accessing appropriate specialism to
establish the diagnosis they require to
access social care. Whilst a firm diagnosis
should be made only by those with
sufficient understanding and knowledge
of autism, it is important not to create
unnecessary delays in diagnostic pathways

or restrict diagnostic ‘know how’ to
any one clinical specialism. Instead,
community specialist mental health
services should take a multi-professional
approach to assessing and signposting
people with ASD to appropriate health
and social care. The same situation applies
to dementia in younger people4
and other
neurological conditions including acquired
brain injury through head injury and
poisoning with alcohol (amnesic syndrome
or Korsakoff’s psychosis) and other
substances. These services are described
in detail in forthcoming JCP-MH guidance
on autism services53
.
Perinatal services
It is reasonable to expect community
specialist mental health services to provide
basic advice on prescribing in pregnancy
and to manage moderate levels of
postnatal mental illness such as depression.
However, the NICE guidelines on antenatal
and postnatal mental health recommend
the development of clear pathways to
determine (a) at what point and (b) how
a patient has access to specialist maternal
. This may require
referral to a regional centre for specialist or
inpatient care and, in such circumstances,
pathways must specify the liaison role of
local teams.
D SERVICE STANDARDS
Commissioners will want to commission
community specialist mental health
services that can demonstrate that they
meet the recognised standards for their
service (such as the NICE evidence-based
quality standards).
However, it is not possible to provide a
single “one size fits all” model or measure
for community specialist mental health
services. Commissioners should therefore
seek local interpretation of national policy,
while the advent of Payment by Results for
mental health (see below) is likely to have
a significant effect upon service models
and commissioning decisions.
Care Programme Approach
Since the early 1990s, the Care
Programme Approach (CPA) has
determined the system by which care is
managed in community specialist mental
health services. This is a systematic
approach that recognises severity and
complexity of illness, requires allocation
of a care co-ordinator and provides a
framework for developing care plans
with the patient, reviewing, updating
and monitoring progress. The approach
changed in 2008 to recognise that only a
proportion of patients with more complex
issues require a formal CPA approach
(this equates to the roughly one-third of
patients who were previous designated
as requiring ‘enhanced’ CPA). These are
people who typically require multi-agency
support, active engagement, intensive
interventions, support with dual diagnosis
of mental illness and substance misuse and
those with a high risk profile3
.
It is important that self-care and self-
determination are encouraged as far as
is possible. This requires a partnership
approach as primary care services continue
to fulfil an important role even for patients
whose mental health needs require a
substantial input from specialist services.
The GP remains at the heart of a patient’s
care and the goal of both specialist and
primary care services is to plan for the
return of the patient’s support exclusively
to primary care. Specialist services
therefore become involved periodically, in
partnership with the GP, rather than taking
responsibility for all aspects of the patient’s
healthcare. Patients who are not subject to
formal CPA still have care plans and a case
manager who oversees their care.
It is critical to remember that consultants
will straddle two roles in this context: one
as a member and clinical leader within the
CMHT, and one as colleague and specialist
support to the GP in primary care.
Payment by results (PbR)
and care clusters
It is Government policy that funding
of mental health services will move from
a block contract to payment according to
locally-agreed tariffs or ‘PbR currencies’
associated with individual service users
or patients and the interventions they
access54
. The currencies are based upon
21 care clusters that define interventions
based upon need rather than of diagnosis.
Each cluster has a series of interventions
associated with it and these can be used
to inform local care pathways. Since
the clusters are only loosely associated
with diagnosis, there will be a significant
challenge to ensure that interventions
are evidence-based and compliant with
relevant NICE guidelines (which are based
on diagnosis). It is anticipated that the
development of care clusters will have
a significant impact upon the
commissioning of community specialist
mental health services.

What do GP commissioners want
from specialist mental health services?
Although variability exists, most GPs are
able to assess and treat the majority of
mental health problems presenting to
primary care. What most GPs might want
from community specialist mental health
services, and issues that might be included
in any commissioning contract include:
• an easily accessible and helpful
relationship with a named consultant
(this might include agreements around
email advice and mobile phone contact)
• clear care pathways, particularly for
relatively low prevalence conditions such
as early-onset dementia, and for people
with learning disabilities
• coherent arrangements for access in
general
• coherent arrangements for access to
out-of-hours care
• agreed waiting times that are
appropriate to the diagnosis and age
of the individual
• referrals signposted to other services
if the original care pathway is
subsequently felt to be less appropriate
• individuals seen by trainees are
supervised and the letter countersigned
by the senior practitioner present in
the clinic
• agreed criteria for discharge that
preclude discharge secondary to failure
to attend
• involvement in CPA reviews (where
this is relevant) held at surgeries
wherever possible
• a sensible approach to shared care,
particularly for people felt to be at risk
to themselves and/or others
• agreed arrangements for physical
health reviews, particularly for people
with serious mental illness and on
antipsychotic medication, where data
are shared across the interface.
E SERVICE OUTCOMES
The following measures could be used
to ensure services achieve high clinical,
cost, quality and safety outcomes.
For cost effectiveness:
• average duration of specialist mental
health care by care cluster, assessment
and discharge rates.
For effectiveness:
• basic clinical outcome measures (e.g.
Health of the Nation Outcome Scale)
• social functioning outcome measures.
For safety:
• excess under 75 mortality rate in people
with serious mental illness (outcome
1.5 of the NHS Outcomes Framework
2013/14)55
• QOF incentives to assess and manage
the physical health of people with
severe mental illness56
(related to shared
objective 3 of the No health without
mental health strategy1
)
• incidence of ‘never events’, completed
suicide and homicide rates.
For recovery:
• percentage of patients with personalised
care plans and goals
• percentage of people referred who are
being offered psychological therapy
• employment rates of people with
mental illness (outcome 2.5 of NHS
Outcomes Framework 2013/14 and
shared objective 6 of the mental health
strategy1
)
• patient self-defined goals (e.g. using
techniques such as Shapiro’s Personal
Questionnaire technique – see
www.experiential-researchers.org/
instruments/elliott/pqprocedure.html)
• the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-
being scale (see www.healthscotland.
com/documents/1467.aspx)57
.
For patient and carer experience:
• local and national surveys of patient
and carer satisfaction
• patient recorded outcome measures
following a consultation
• local surveys of GP satisfaction with local
mental health services
• review of complaints and compliments
• the CHOICE tool58
.

• interdisciplinary teams (IDTs), comprise
practitioners from different professions
and subspecialties who share a common
catchment population and have joint
responsibility for complementary tasks
• staff are trained in developing a wider
and more eclectic understanding of
mental healthcare provision
• the active registration of service users/
patients for equitable access to primary
and secondary care
• ‘practice-based mental health teams’
to assist the primary care team in
supporting people with chronic mental
health problems and facilitate general
healthcare, offering those with chronic
illness easy access to secondary care in
the event of deterioration
• patients whose needs cannot be met
in an IDT, or whose outcomes would
be better from a specialist service, will
receive care within tertiary teams
• a ‘first point of contact centre’ where
algorithms are used to assign new
referrals to an appropriate part of the
service including signposting to IAPT,
partner agencies, crisis teams or an
assessment component of the IDT
• highly specialist teams at tertiary level
include specialist learning disabilities,
dementia (including early onset
dementia) and CAMHS teams
• job planning, where work plans will
indicate the time staff give to each
component of the service, maintaining
specialist competencies through sessions
within specialist tertiary teams.
INNOVATIVE PRACTICE MODELS
The Haven Project
www.thehavenproject.org.uk
“I started at The Haven early
this year. I’ve used mental health
services for fifteen years or more.
At last I’ve found somewhere
that’s right for me and my
diagnosis. It’s saved my life
really. I have stopped cutting and
overdosing.”
The project is dedicated to the support
and treatment of people with a personality
disorder living in the North Essex area.
The aims are to:
• empower clients in their journey of
recovery
• help them to manage their problems of
life more effectively
• develop under-used resources and seek
missed opportunities
• to help build self-confidence and self-
esteem, to enhance a sense of personal
responsibility and, ultimately, to assist
their clients in developing alternative
coping strategies and preventing or
managing their difficulties.
Crisis services are available to registered
users of the project. Telephone contact
is available 24 hours a day, every day,
aiming to provide a swift response and
early intervention at times of crisis. Travel
can be arranged to ensure fast access
to The Haven at any time of the day or
night. Respite admission is provided by a
four bedroom ‘Crisis House’ where clients
can stay for up to three weeks or clients
in crisis can use ‘The Sanctuary’, a safe
location where they can manage their
difficulties during stays of a few hours.
Fair Horizons
www.2gether.nhs.uk
“In order to deliver appropriate
mental health services, now, more
than ever before, we will need to be
innovative and focussed on person-
centred, outcome-driven care. The
most appropriate way to do this
will be to integrate specialist mental
health services, allowing a single
point of access, and then delivering
care that is most appropriate to the
person’s needs.”59
Fair Horizons represents 2gether
Foundation NHS Trust’s response to
the need to provide a person-centred
model of mental health care that does
not discriminate on grounds of age or
intellectual level. It draws on concepts
of ‘capable teams’ derived from New
Ways of Working and attempts to steer
specialist mental health services away
from artificial ‘silos’ of working age
adult, older people and learning disability
services. Instead, it focuses on a more fluid
approach where services can be offered
in a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary
way so that patients can benefit from any
aspect of the service that fits their needs
and do not become caught on artificial
team and service boundaries.
The basis of care within Fair Horizons is
a ‘one stop shop’, providing the majority
of mental health needs and supported by
more specialist, tertiary teams:

Peer support
Peer support involves the use of people
with experience of mental health
problems to provide individualised support
and expertise about treatment and care
to people with mental health problems.
This is an evolving field which is
recognised as having the potential to
transform the outcomes of people with
mental health problems, and where a
number of services are already reporting
positive experiences60
. The evidence base
for peer support reflects the fact that this
is an initiative in its early stages in the
UK, with some studies concluding that
peer support may lead to a reduction in
admissions and to health improvements61
.
In addition to the large number of local
and national groups that provide peer
support, the following initiatives provide
networking opportunities or examples of
employed peer support workers within
mental health care providers:
• Cambridge and Peterborough NHS
Foundation Trust’s “Peer Worker
Programme” (www.cpft.nhs.uk)
• Peer Support 4 Mental Health – Sussex
(www.peersupport4mentalhealth.org.uk)
• Peer worker research project –
(www.peerworker.sgul.as.uk)
• Bromley MIND peer support training –
(www.bromleymind.org.uk)
Implementing recovery within specialist
mental healthcare offers ‘personalisation’
of support leading to greater social
inclusion (employment, engagement with
social networks, community activities).
Improved service user or patient
satisfaction is expected to encourage the
development of local, user-led training
initiatives on recovery awareness, more
effective partnership working and the
creation of a ‘common language’ for
discussions between providers and
commissioners about recovery, thereby
facilitating more effective commissioning
and better informed agreements about
contracts and performance measures.
Implementing Recovery Organisational
Change (ImROC)
ImROC is advocated by the QIPP
programme for mental health. It is
designed to move specialist mental health
care from traditional ‘treatment and cure’
models offering open-ended support
(sometimes amounting to community-
based institutionalisation) to realistically
optimistic, recovery-based services with
time-limited, focused and evidence-
based interventions that reduce distress
and enhance self-determination, social
inclusion and quality of life.
The ten challenges of ImROC are62
:
1 changing the nature of day-to-
day interactions and the quality of
experience
2 delivering comprehensive user-led
education and training programmes
3 establishing a ‘Recovery Education
Centre’ to drive the programmes
forward
4 ensuring organisational commitment,
creating the ‘culture’; the importance
of leadership
5 increasing personalisation and choice
6 changing processes for risk assessment
and management
7 redefining service user involvement
8 transforming the workforce
9 supporting staff in their recovery
journeys
10 increasing opportunities for building
life ‘beyond illness’.

Supporting the delivery of the mental health strategy
The JCP-MH believes that commissioning
which leads to good community specialist
mental health services as described in
this guide will support the delivery of
the Mental Health Strategy1
in a number
of ways:
Shared objective 1:
More people will have
good mental health.
Excellent links with primary care will ensure
that the stepped care model of prevention,
risk stratification and early intervention
will result in serious mental illness being
identified earlier. This will lead to a better
response to treatment interventions and
more people recovering.
Shared objective 2:
more people with mental
health problems will recover.
Mental illness will be managed through
partnership working between primary
care, community specialist mental health
care and acute mental health care within
a commissioned system that answers the
needs of the local population. Equitable
and non-discriminatory access to evidence-
based physical, psychological and social
interventions will result in patients
enjoying a better quality of life, stronger
social relationships, a better chance of
maintaining safe and stable housing
and more opportunities to participate in
education and gain employment. The use
of defined care pathways and outcome
measures will ensure that the care
provided is of good quality and informed
by the evidence base.
Shared objective 3:
more people with mental
health problems will have
good physical health.
Interventions addressing the comorbidity
of physical and mental illness will be
delivered better through collaborative
working between primary care and
community specialist mental health care.
Shared objective 4:
more people will have a positive
experience of care and support.
People who use community specialist
mental health services will have their
needs and wishes put at the heart of
their care. Each will have a personalised
care plan that supports access to the
appropriate psychological, social and
physical interventions required, and this
will help inform regular reviews by the
care co-ordinator. People with serious
and enduring mental health problems will
have equality of access to primary care and
specialist care for physical health needs.
Shared objective 5:
fewer people will suffer
avoidable harm.
The provision of comprehensive, evidence-
based mental healthcare is likely to reduce
the morbidity associated with mental
illness and comorbidity of physical illness.
In providing equitable access to physical
healthcare it is likely to reduce
the incidence of avoidable pathology
due to unrecognised physical illnesses.
It will affect positively the occurrence of
deliberate self-harm, suicide and homicide.
Shared objective 6:
fewer people will experience
stigma and discrimination.
People whose mental health is effectively
managed are more likely to maintain social
networks, housing and employment. Friends
and family networks, education, employment
and stable accommodation are central to
quality of life. Maintaining contact with
primary care and accessing mental health care
through the GP where possible can avoid
the stigma attached to engagement with
secondary mental health services.

Expert Reference Group Members
• Chris Fear
(ERG Chair and lead author)
Clinical Director
2gether NHS Foundation Trust
for Herefordshire
• Helen Lester (1961-2013)
Professor of Primary Care
Royal College of General
Practitioners Lead for Mental Health
Commissioning, and Co-Chair of the
JCP-MH, University of Birmingham
• Sally Dean
Service user consultant
• Alex Stirzaker
National Adviser for Serious
Mental Illness
Improving Access to Psychological
Therapies programme
• Alison Brabban
IAPT SMI National Advisor,
Clinical Lead, Early Intervention in
Psychosis Service
Tees, Esk & Wear Valleys
NHS Foundation Trust
• David Smart
General Practitioner with Special
Interest in Mental Health
Nene Commissioning
Northamptonshire
• Jonathan Campion
Director for Public Mental Health
and Consultant Psychiatrist
South London and Maudsley
• Faye Wilson
Social worker and Chair of BASW’s
mental health forum
British Association of Social Workers
• Gillian Bowden
Adult Service Area Lead
Division of Clinical Psychology
British Psychological Society
• Ian Hulatt
Mental Health Adviser
Royal College of Nursing
• John Hanna
Past Director (BPS) and
Consultant Clinical Psychologist
Policy Unit
Division of Clinical Psychology
British Psychological Society
Camden and Islington
Development process
This guide has been written by a group
of community mental health service
experts, in consultation with people with
experience of mental health problems
and carers. Each member of the Joint
Commissioning Panel for Mental Health
received drafts of the guide for review
and revision, and advice was sought
from external partner organisations and
individual experts. Final revisions to the
guide were made by the Chair of the
Expert Reference Group in collaboration
with the JCP’s Editorial Board (comprised
of the two co-chairs of the JCP-MH,
one user representative, one carer
representative, and technical and project
management support staff).

References
1 Department of Health (2011a) No
Health Without Mental Health; a cross
government mental health outcomes
strategy for people of all ages.
2 Bennett, A., Appleton, S., Jackson, C.
(eds) (2011) Practical mental health
commissioning. London: JCP-MH.
3 Joint Commissioning Panel for
Mental Health (2012) Guidance for
commissioners of primary mental
health services. London: JCP-MH.
commissioners of dementia services.
London: JCP-MH.
commissioners of liaison mental health
services to acute hospitals. London:
JCP-MH.
Mental Health (2012) Guidance
for commissioners of mental health
services for young people making the
transition from child and adolescent to
adult services. London: JCP-MH.
commissioners of perinatal mental
commissioners of public mental health
services. London: JCP-MH.
commissioners of rehabilitation services
for people with complex mental health
needs. London: JCP-MH.
commissioners of drug and alcohol
services. London: JCP-MH.
commissioners of forensic mental
12 NHS Information Centre. (2011).
NHS specialist mental health services
13 Marshall M, Rathbone J. Early
intervention for psychosis. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews 2011,
Issue 6. Art. No.: CD004718. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD004718.pub3
14 Murphy S, Irving CB, Adams CE, Driver
R. Crisis intervention for people with
severe mental illnesses. Cochrane
10.1002/14651858.CD001087.pub4
15 Reilly, S., Planner, C., Gask, L., Hann,
M., Knowles, S., Druss, B., Lester, H.E.
The role of primary care in service
provision for people with severe mental
illness: A cross sectional cohort study.
PLoS ONE 2012, e36468 doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0036468
16 Malone D, Marriott S, Newton-Howes
G, Simmonds S, Tyrer P. Community
mental health teams (CMHTs) for
people with severe mental illnesses
and disordered personality. Cochrane
10.1002/14651858.CD000270.pub2
17 Killapsy H, Bebbington P, Blizard R,
Johnson S, Nolan F, Pilling S, King M.
REACT: a randomised evaluation of
assertive community treatment in north
London. BMJ, 2006, 332:815-9.
18 Marshall M, Lockwood A. Assertive
community treatment for people with
severe mental disorders. Cochrane
10.1002/14651858.CD001089.
19 McCrone P, Knapp M, Dhanasiri
S. Economic impact of services for
first-episode psychosis: a decision
model approach. Early Intervention in
Psychiatry, 2009, 3(4),266–273.
20 Bird V, Premkumar P, Kendall T,
Whittington C, Mitchel J, Kuipers
E.. Early intervention services,
cognitive–behavioural therapy and
family intervention in early psychosis:
systematic review. The British Journal
of Psychiatry, 2010, 197: 350-356 doi:
10.1192/bjp.bp.109.074526
21 McCrone, P., Craig, T.J.K., Power, P.,
Garety, P.A. Cost-effectiveness of an
early intervention service for people
with psychosis. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 2010, 197, pp. 377-82.
22 Mihalopoulos C, Harris M, Henry
L, Harrigan S, McGorry P. Is Early
Intervention in Psychosis Cost-Effective
Over the Long Term? Schizophr Bull,
2009, 35 (5): 909-918. doi: 10.1093/
schbul/sbp054
23 Craig T, Garety P, Power P, Rahaman
N, Colbert S, Fornells-Ambrojo, Dunn
G. The Lambeth Early Onset (LEO)
Team: randomised controlled trial
of the effectiveness of specialised
care for early psychosis. BMJ, 2004,
329(7474): 1067. doi: 10.1136/
bmj.38246.594873.7C
24 Bertelsen M, Jeppesen P, Petersen L,
Thorup A, Øhlenschlæger J, le Quach
P, Christensen T, Krarup G, Jørgensen
P, Nordentoft M. Five-Year Follow-
up of a Randomized Multicenter Trial
of Intensive Early Intervention vs
Standard Treatment for Patients With a
First Episode of Psychotic Illness. Arch
Gen Psychiatry, 2008, 65(7):762-771.
doi:10.1001/archpsyc.65.7.762

25 Major BS, Hinton MF, Flint A,
Chalmers-Brown A, McLoughlin
K, Johnson S. Evidence of the
effectiveness of a specialist vocational
intervention following first episode
psychosis: a naturalistic prospective
cohort study. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 2009,
Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 1-8
26 McCrone P, Park A, Knapp M.
(2010) Economic Evaluation of Early
Intervention (EI) Services: Phase IV
Report. PSSRU Discussion Paper 2745.
27 Glover G, Arts G, Babu K. Crisis
resolution/home treatment teams and
psychiatric admission rates in England.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 2006, 192,
88-91.
28 Department of Health (1999). National
service framework for mental health:
modern standards and service models.
London, Department of Health.
29 Appleton, S., Pugh, K. (2011). Planning
mental health services for young adults
– improving transition: a resource for
health and social care commissioners.
London: NMHDU/NCSS/SCIE
30 Bower, P., Gilbody, S., Richards, D.,
Fletcher, J., Sutton, A. Collaborative
care for depression in primary
care. Making sense of a complex
intervention: systematic review and
meta-regression. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 2006, 189, pp. 484–93
31 Gilbody, S., Bower, P., Fletcher, J.,
Richards, D., Sutton, A. Collaborative
care for depression: a cumulative
meta-analysis and review of longer-
term outcomes. Archives of Internal
Medicine, 2006, 166, pp. 2314–21
32 Fletcher, J., Bower, P.J., Gilbody, S.,
Lovell, K., Richards, D., Gask, L.
Collaborative care for depression and
anxiety problems in primary care.
Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, 2009. Issue 2.
33 Department of Health. (2002). Mental
Health Policy Implementation Guide:
Community Mental Health Teams.
London: Department of Health.
34 National Institute for Health and
Clinical Excellence (2011) Generalised
anxiety disorder and panic disorder
(with or without agoraphobia) in
adults. Management in primary,
secondary and community care Issued.
NICE clinical guideline 113.
www.nice.org.uk/cg113
Clinical Excellence (2005) Obsessive-
compulsive disorder: core interventions
in the treatment of obsessive-
compulsive disorder and body
dysmorphic disorder. Clinical Guideline
31. www.nice.org.uk/CG031
Clinical Excellence (2005) Post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) The
management of PTSD in adults and
children in primary and secondary care.
NICE clinical Guideline 26 www.nice.
org.uk/CG026NICEguideline
Clinical Excellence (2009) Depression
in adults. The treatment and
management of depression in adults.
NICE clinical guideline 90
www.nice.org.uk/cg90
Clinical Excellence (2009) Depression
in adults with a chronic physical health
problem. Treatment and management.
NICE clinical guideline
www.nice.org.uk/CG91
Clinical Excellence (2006) Bipolar
disorder. The management of bipolar
disorder in adults, children and
adolescents, in primary and secondary
care. NICE clinical guideline 38.
40 National Institute for Health
and Clinical Excellence (2009)
Schizophrenia. Core interventions in
the treatment and management of
schizophrenia in adults In primary and
secondary care. NICE clinical guideline
82. www.nice.org.uk/CG82
Clinical Excellence (2009) Antisocial
personality disorder: treatment,
management and prevention. NICE
clinical guideline CG77.
Clinical Excellence (2009) Borderline
personality disorder (BPD) NICE clinical
guideline CG78. www.nice.org.uk/
CG78
Clinical Excellence (2004) Eating
disorders: Core interventions in
the treatment and management of
anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and
related eating disorders. NICE clinical
guideline CG9. www.nice.org.uk/
CG009
Clinical Excellence (2004) Self-
harm: The short-term physical and
psychological management and
secondary prevention of self-harm
in primary and secondary care NICE
clinical guideline CG16. www.nice.org.
uk/CG16
Clinical Excellence (2011) Longer-term
care and treatment of self-harm. NICE
clinical guideline CG133.
www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG133
Clinical Excellence (2007) Antenatal
and postnatal mental health: clinical
management and service guidance.
NICE clinical guideline CG45.
www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG45

Clinical Excellence (2011) Psychosis
with coexisting substance misuse.
NICE clinical guideline CG120.
48 Byford S, Fiander M, Torgerson DJ,
Barber JA, Thompson SG, Burns T, Van
Horn E, Gilvarry C, Creed F. The British
Journal of Psychiatry, 2000, 176: 537-
543 doi: 10.1192/bjp.176.6.537
49 Van Veldhuizen JR. FACT: a Dutch
version of ACT. Community Mental
Health Journal, 2007, 43; 421-433.
50 Dieterich M, Irving CB, Park
B, Marshall M. Intensive case
management for severe mental illness.
Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 2010, Issue 10. Art. No.:
CD007906. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.
CD007906.pub2
51 Lester, H., Birchwood, M., Bryan, S.,
England, E., Rogers, H., Sirvastava, N.
Development and implementation of
early intervention services for young
people with psychosis: case study.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 2009, 194,
pp. 446-50.
52 Marshall M, Rathbone J. Early
intervention for psychosis. Cochrane
10.1002/14651858.CD004718.pub3
53 Joint Commissioning Panel for Mental
Health (forthcoming) Guidance for
commissioners of autistic spectrum
disorders. London: JCP-MH.
54 Department of Health (2013) Mental
Health Payment by Results Guidance
for 2013-14.
55 Department of Health (2012). The
NHS Outcomes Framework 2013/14.
56 British Medical Association and
NHS Employers (2012). Quality and
Outcomes Framework for 2012/13
Guidance for PCOs and practices.
57 The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-
being Scale (WEMWBS): development
and UK validation. Ruth Tennant,
Louise Hiller, Ruth Fishwick, Stephen
Platt, Stephen Joseph, Scott Weich,
Jane Parkinson, Jenny Secker, Sarah
Stewart-Brown Health and Quality of
Life Outcomes 2007, 5:63
58 Greenwood K, Sweeney A, Williams
S, Garety P, Kuipers E, Scott J,
Peters E. CHoice of Outcome In
Cbt for psychosEs (CHOICE): The
Development of a New Service User–
Led Outcome Measure of CBT for
Psychosis. Schizophr Bull, 2010, 36 (1):
126-135. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbp117.
59 Fear C, Scheepers M, Ansell M,
Richards R, Winterbottom P. ‘Fair
Horizons’: a person-centred, non-
discriminatory model of mental
healthcare delivery. The Psychiatrist
(2012) 36: 25-30.
60 Mental Health Foundation (2012) Peer
support in mental health and learning
disability. Need2Know Briefing.
61 Repper, J. & Carter, T. A review of the
literature on peer support in mental
health services. Journal of Mental
Health, 2011, 20(4): 392-411.
62 Shepherd G, Boardman J, Slade M.
(2008) Making recovery a reality.
London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental
Health.

A large print version of this document is available from
www.jcpmh.info
Published May 2013
Produced by Raffertys

Guidance for commissioners of community specialist mental health services

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Guidance for commissioners of community specialist mental health services

Recently uploaded

Guidance for commissioners of community specialist mental health services