The Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter (I.ROC) is to date the only recovery outcomes instrument developed in Scotland. This paper describes the steps taken to initially assess its validity and reliability, including factorial analysis, internal consistency and a correlation benchmarking analysis.

The I.ROC tool showed high internal consistency. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a two-factor structure comprising intrapersonal recovery (factor 1) and interpersonal recovery (factor 2), explaining between them over 50% of the variance in I.ROC scores. There were no redundant items and all loaded on at least one of the factors. The I.ROC significantly correlated with widely used existing instruments assessing both personal recovery and clinical outcomes.

I.ROC is a valid and reliable measure of recovery in mental health, preferred by service users when compared with well-established instruments. It could be used in clinical settings to map individual recovery, providing feedback for service users and helping to assess service outcomes.

To evaluate outcomes for service users during their first year of treatment in three English assertive outreach teams. Changes in health and social functioning, engagement with services, service use and need (rated by staff and service users) were evaluated.

In 49 service users we found a significant increase in mean staff-rated met needs up to 6 months of treatment. There were no significant changes in ratings of engagement or Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) scores at 6 and 12 months. Unmet needs rated by service users and staff showed a non-significant trend for improvement across a range of individual health and social domains. Duration of hospital admission reduced significantly between the 12 months before the evaluation and the 12 months of the evaluation. Formal and informal admission and levels of contact with crisis teams reduced over the study period.

Although these results offer some support to the assertive outreach approach, further research in larger samples is needed to identify which changes in health and social functioning are associated with transfer to assertive outreach teams.

Crisis resolution and home treatment teams (variously abbreviated to CRTs, CRHTTs, HTTs) were introduced to reduce the number and duration of in-patient admissions and better manage individuals in crisis. Despite their ubiquity, their evidence base is challengeable. This systematic review explored whether CRTs: (a) affected voluntary and compulsory admissions; (b) treat particular patient groups; (c) are cost-effective; and (d) provide care patients value.

Crisis resolution teams appear effective in reducing admissions, although data are mixed and other factors have also influenced this. Compulsory admissions may have increased, but evidence that CRTs are causally related is inconclusive. There are few clinical differences between ‘gate-kept’ patients admitted and those not. Crisis resolution teams are cheaper than in-patient care and, overall, patients are satisfied with CRT care.

High-quality evidence for CRTs is scarce, although they appear to contribute to reducing admissions. Patient-relevant psychosocial and longitudinal outcomes are under-explored.