Contents

Acknowledgement

Introduction

Preface

The Interviewees

Internal Structure

The Staff

Conclusion

Appendix 1. -

The Questionnaire

Appendix 2. -

Questionnaire Data

Internal Structure

We asked our sample of 73 Mental Health Service Users how they would like to be able to access the House. 50% said they would like to be referred by both medical professionals and themselves, of the remainder, 40% said they would like to be able to refer themselves directly. The favoured method was by phone (71%) or in person by dropping in (67%). Other methods were with the help of a Community Psychiatric Nurse (36%) by Accident and Emergency staff (23%) and other means such as by Psychiatrist or Social Worker or by services such as Day Hospitals or Day Centres, GP or Keyworker.

Users thought the length of stay should be according to need, with our survey's limit of four weeks frequently being given the proviso that people shouldn't be made to leave too quickly: "gradual exit rather than sudden" is a quote from the survey. 65% said people should be able to stay up to four weeks.

When asked how many people should be able to stay there, our maximum limit of twelve beds was supported by 82% with some suggesting more, but not so many as to become impersonal.

73% of our sample said Users should be able to sign themselves in and out of the building freely. Exceptions were made for the suicidal or the extremely confused. Safe and secure but not restricted was the feeling. Visiting hours should have restrictions on them so as not to upset the safety of those living at the House. 66% said there should be some restrictions for the security of the residents.

When it came to issues of gender segregation in the House, 19% of women questioned wanted an all female House. Two Houses, one for women and the other mixed as in Islington would be good, but many anticipated that as long as Drayton Park is able to care for women from Camden, this would be unlikely to happen. 41% of men and 31% of women said that a mixed House would be desirable, with 8% not wishing to express an opinion.

Although only two men agreed to an all male Crisis House, some women expressed their need for safety and security as being an absence of men. Gender issues were also apparent in the communal room question, which reflected 27% of women wanting two separate rooms and 29% of men wanting one communal sitting room. Together, the sample came to 44% for one communal room, and 44% wanting two separate rooms.

90% of our sample said they would like to be able to smoke in designated areas.

95% wanted a dry House with no alcohol allowed on the premises at all.

83% said that having a single bedroom was important to them, with 20% of men and 27% of women citing it as essential.

78% said there should be no age limit to admissions, and 79% said that people shouldn't be expected to pay for use of the service.

When asked what their most basic assumptions about what a Crisis House should provide, we had the following responses:

- "Good nutritional food of a very high standard with veg options".

- "Help, hope and direction, basic structure, 24 hour listening ear".

- "Rest, peace, good food, therapy treatment, counselling, support".

- "Time to talk one to one, caring atmosphere, safety".

- "Quiet, caring and concern for each individual, good food, telephone, good security".

- "Company, interaction, warmth, professional advice and care. Strategy plan for advancement".

Another quote mentions "Support, contact with other professionals in your care plan", and this reflects concerns about sleeping and dosage of medication, advice about side effects and the ability to see a doctor, as in the person who said: "Advice - support - cleanliness - nurse - GP - Mental Health Workers - Welfare Rights Officer - food."

93% said that it was important that the House be in a quiet location, although it was mentioned that accessibility was also of importance and that therefore the House should be conveniently located in relation to transport and local shops.