Mental Health Crisis Centres: A Promising Reform That Must Not Fall Short of Legal and Clinical Standards
The NHS’s recent commitment to roll out mental health crisis centres across England over the next decade has been broadly welcomed as a long-overdue response to an urgent problem. For too long, individuals in acute psychological distress, including those experiencing suicidal ideation, psychosis, or manic episodes have found themselves waiting for hours, even days, in general A&E departments ill-equipped to offer the care they urgently require.
The aim of these specialist crisis centres is to provide a calm, clinically appropriate environment for those in need, staffed by trained mental health professionals and open to walk-ins as well as referrals from GPs and the police. The benefits of such a model are evident: faster access to appropriate care, reduced pressure on overcrowded emergency departments, and a more humane response to people in crisis.
Yet as legal professionals specialising in medical negligence, we must view this development through a more critical lens. While the intent behind these reforms is laudable, the implications for patient safety, standards of care, and potential future liability must not be overlooked.
Recent figures published by the Royal College of Nursing reveal the scale of the problem: over 5,000 patients experiencing a mental health crisis have waited more than 12 hours1 for a bed each year up fivefold since 2019. Some have waited up to 72 hours2. In that time, they are frequently left in chaotic A&E environments, with little privacy, specialist oversight, or protection from harm. This is not just a matter of clinical inefficiency it is a matter of legal risk and patient rights.
A&E departments were never designed to function as crisis intervention centres for mental health emergencies, and the harm that can arise from this mismatch is not hypothetical. Patients left in distress, unattended, or inadequately supervised may deteriorate further or come to harm through self-injury, suicide attempts, or neglect. For those affected and their families, this can lead not only to tragic outcomes but to legal action against the NHS or its partners for breaches in duty of care.
The introduction of dedicated crisis centres is therefore, in principle, a significant and welcome attempt to rectify a serious failure in the system. However, as with many public sector reforms, the difference between success and failure will lie entirely in execution.
As Andy Bell of the Centre for Mental Health has rightly cautioned, the model is currently untested at scale. Rushing implementation without robust pilot data, adequate staffing, and integrated clinical pathways could result in uneven standards of care and in some cases, repeat the very failings these centres are meant to address.
Compounding this concern is the issue of funding. While £26 million has been pledged to support the new centres, this comes amid broader reductions in mental health spending as a proportion of the NHS budget. If the ambition is not matched by real, sustained investment particularly in specialist workforce training and operational capacity then these centres risk becoming under-resourced holding bays, rather than the transformative spaces they are intended to be.
From a legal perspective, this is especially pertinent. Understaffed or under-resourced facilities can be a breeding ground for clinical failings, inadequate monitoring, breaches of safeguarding obligations, and systemic neglect each of which may give rise to legitimate claims in negligence or human rights breaches under the Mental Health Act.
Moreover, the government’s decision to remove national mental health access targets raises further concerns. These metrics, while imperfect, at least provided a level of transparency and accountability. Their absence makes it harder for patients and their legal representatives to track whether services are meeting acceptable standards of care.
In conclusion, the expansion of mental health crisis centres is a promising initiative with real potential to address longstanding systemic failings. For patients and their families, it offers hope for a more responsive and compassionate system. But from both a clinical and legal standpoint, that promise hinges entirely on implementation. Proper funding, rigorous oversight, and professional staffing are not optional extras, they are the very conditions that determine whether such centres reduce harm or, inadvertently, become another site of it.
HJA, will continue to monitor the development and performance of these centres closely.
Our medical negligence team is committed to defending the rights of individuals failed by the healthcare system. With decades of experience in complex clinical negligence and mental health law cases, we are dedicated to ensuring that reforms in mental health care are not just well-intentioned but also legally sound, safe, and accountable.
This blog was written by Zaki Abdullah Kabir, a law student currently gaining work experience at Hodge Jones & Allen as part of his journey toward a legal career.