BACKGROUND: Internationally, intensive psychiatric home treatment has been increasingly implemented as a community-based alternative to inpatient admission. Since 2018, the so-called Inpatient Equivalent Home Treatment (IEHT; German: "Stationsäquivalente Behandlung", short: "StäB") has been introduced as a particularly intensive form of home treatment that provides at least one daily treatment contact in the service users' (SU) home environment. Prior research shows that this can be challenging in rural catchment areas. Our paper investigates to which extent the location of the SU home location within the catchment area as well as the distance between the home and the clinic influence the utilisation of inpatient treatment compared to IEHT. METHOD: Routine data of one psychiatric hospital in the federal state of Brandenburg in Germany were analysed for the observational period 07/2018-06/2021. Two comparison groups were formed: SU receiving inpatient treatment and SU receiving IEHT. The SU places of residence were respectively anonymised and converted into geo-coordinates. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to visualise the places of residence, and car travel distances as well as travel times to the clinic were determined. Spatial analyses were performed to show the differences between comparison groups. In a more in-depth analysis, the proximity of SU residences to each other was examined as an indicator of possible clustering. RESULTS: During the observational period, the location of 687 inpatient and 140 IEHT unique SU were mapped using the GIS. SU receiving treatment resided predominantly within the catchment area, and this proportion was slightly higher for SU receiving IEHT than for those treated in inpatient setting (95.3% vs. 84.7%). In the catchment area, the geographical distribution of SU place of residence was similar in the two groups. There was a general higher service provision in the more densely populated communities close to Berlin. SU with residence in peripheral communities were mainly treated within the inpatient setting. The mean travel times and distances to the place of residence only differed minimally between the two groups of SU (p > 0.05). The places of residence of SU treated with IEHT were located in greater proximity to each other than those of SU treated in inpatient setting (p < 0.1). CONCLUSION: In especially peripheral parts of the examined catchment area, it may be more difficult to have access to IEHT rather than to inpatient services. The results raise questions regarding health equity and the planning of health care services and have important implications for the further development of intensive home treatment. Telehealth interventions such as blended-care approaches and an increase of flexibility in treatment intensity, e.g. eliminating the daily visit requirement, could ease the implementation of intensive home treatment especially in rural areas.