Exploring the lived experience of receiving mental health crisis care at emergency departments, crisis phone lines and crisis care alternatives

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundMental health crisis care includes emergency departments (EDs), crisis phone lines and crisis alternatives. Currently, there is an overreliance on EDs to provide mental health crisis care, with evidence that responses are often inadequate to meet the needs of people experiencing mental health crises. However, the complexities of how individuals experience crisis care across the varying contexts of EDs, crisis phone lines and crisis alternatives remain underresearched.MethodThis study used a hermeneutical phenomenological approach to understand the lived experience of accessing care during a mental health crisis. Thirty‐one Australian adults who had accessed crisis services at ED, phone lines and/or crisis alternatives participated in in‐depth interviews.ResultsThe findings are organised across the temporal narratives of participants' experiences from (1) point of contact, (2) positive and negative care experiences and (3) enduring impacts. Several themes were generated during these phases. The findings demonstrate the interrelated nature of care experiences and enduring impacts. With some exceptions, care received within EDs was harmful, resulting in lasting adverse effects. Responses from crisis phone lines were mixed, with participants appreciating the accessibility of after‐hour phone support but finding standardised risk assessments unhelpful. Responses from crisis alternatives to ED were promising, aligning with the need for validation and human connection, but were not always accessible or easy to mobilise during a crisis. Notably, across all settings, positive effects were firmly attributed to the quality of the relationship with specific crisis providers.ConclusionThe findings bring into sharp focus the lived experience of people accessing crisis care and contribute to the shortage of literature on subjective experiences. Providers may better meet the needs of those experiencing mental health crises by understanding the enduring impact of these interactions and the role of human connection beyond a focus on risk assessment, thereby providing opportunities for a joint understanding of risk and meaning‐making. Furthermore, understanding the subjective experience of crisis care can guide reforms to ED and develop crisis alternatives to better meet the needs of people in crisis.Patient or Consumer ContributionThe first author and the third author are in designated lived experience (Consumer) roles. The first author conducted the interviews and was explicit regarding their lived experience when engaging with participants. Service users were involved as advisors to the study and provided input into the design.