Transitions of Care from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services to Adult Mental Health Services (TRACK Study): A study of protocols in Greater London

Swaran P Singh¹ , Moli Paul¹ , Tamsin Ford² , Tami Kramer³ and Tim Weaver³

¹Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

²Institute for Health Service Research, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, St Lukes Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK

³Imperial College, St Mary's Campus, London, UK

author email corresponding author email

BMC Health Services Research 2008, 8:135doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-135


Published:	23 June 2008

Abstract

Background

Although young people's transition from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) to Adult Mental Health Services (AMHS) in England is a significant health issue for service users, commissioners and providers, there is little evidence available to guide service development. The TRACK study aims to identify factors which facilitate or impede effective transition from CAHMS to AMHS. This paper presents findings from a survey of transition protocols in Greater London.

Methods

A questionnaire survey (Jan-April 2005) of Greater London CAMHS to identify transition protocols and collect data on team size, structure, transition protocols, population served and referral rates to AMHS. Identified transition protocols were subjected to content analysis.

Results

Forty two of the 65 teams contacted (65%) responded to the survey. Teams varied in type (generic/targeted/in-patient), catchment area (locality-based, wider or national) and transition boundaries with AMHS. Estimated annual average number of cases considered suitable for transfer to AMHS, per CAMHS team (mean 12.3, range 0–70, SD 14.5, n = 37) was greater than the annual average number of cases actually accepted by AMHS (mean 8.3, range 0–50, SD 9.5, n = 33).

In April 2005, there were 13 active and 2 draft protocols in Greater London. Protocols were largely similar in stated aims and policies, but differed in key procedural details, such as joint working between CAHMS and AMHS and whether protocols were shared at Trust or locality level. While the centrality of service users' involvement in the transition process was identified, no protocol specified how users should be prepared for transition. A major omission from protocols was procedures to ensure continuity of care for patients not accepted by AMHS.

Conclusion

At least 13 transition protocols were in operation in Greater London in April 2005. Not all protocols meet all requirements set by government policy. Variation in protocol-sharing organisational units and transition process suggest that practice may vary. There is discontinuity of care provision for some patients who 'graduate' from CAMHS services but are not accepted by adult services.