Cited by 26Psychiatric care and mental health servicesHomelessness and Social IssuesHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints

Decision analytic model exploring the cost and cost-offset implications of street triage

Open access
Heslin, Margaret, Callaghan, Lynne, Packwood, Martin, Badu, Vincent, Byford, Sarah·2016·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objectives: To determine if street triage is effective at reducing the total number of people with mental health needs detained under section 136, and is associated with cost savings compared to usual police response. Design: Routine data from a 6-month period in the year before and after the implementation of a street triage scheme were used to explore detentions under section 136, and to populate a decision analytic model to explore the impact of street triage on the cost to the NHS and the criminal justice sector of supporting people with a mental health need. Setting: A predefined area of Sussex, South East England, UK. Participants: All people who were detained under section 136 within the predefined area or had contact with the street triage team. Interventions: The street triage model used here was based on a psychiatric nurse attending incidents with a police constable. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome was change in the total number of detentions under section 136 between the before and after periods assessed. Secondary analysis focused on whether the additional costs of street triage were offset by cost savings as a result of changes in detentions under section 136. Results: Detentions under section 136 in the street triage period were significantly lower than in the usual response period (118 vs 194 incidents, respectively; χ 2(1df) 18.542, p<0.001). Total NHS and criminal justice costs were estimated to be £1043 in the street triage period compared to £1077 in the usual response period. Conclusions: Investment in street triage was offset by savings as a result of reduced detentions under section 136, particularly detentions in custody. Data available did not include assessment of patient outcomes, so a full economic evaluation was not possible.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009670

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 4 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [3]Bradley K The Bradley Report: Lord Bradley's Review of People with Mental Health Problems or Learning Disabilities in the Criminal Justice System London: Department of Health, 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heslin, M., Callaghan, L., Packwood, M., Badu, V., & Byford, S.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry (GB)
  • Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Heslin, Margaret
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-02
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
e009670
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2263551488
Cited by
26
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
5.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Homelessness and Social Issues
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Keywords
psychiatric detention, cost reduction, criminal justice costs, NHS costs, decision-analytic model, mental health crisis response
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Support Techniques, United Kingdom, Humans, Patient Care Team, Psychiatric Nursing, Triage, Police

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review