scholarly journals The Care Programme Approach: comment on ‘Time for frank talking’

1997 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 430-431
Author(s):  
David Kingdon
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Therapeutic Strategy ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Research Unit ◽  
Audit Tool ◽  
Care Programme ◽  
Health Service Executive

After seven years of circulars, monitoring, conferences and discussion, frank talking about the CPA may still be welcome, but proposals to CPA coordinators and members of community mental health teams (CMHTs) to revise the procedures implemented by trusts are less likely to be. The previous paper (Burns & Leibowitz) identified a number of difficulties that have accompanied the implementation of the Care Programme Approach, particularly confusion related to care and case management. The CPA was introduced in response to the Spokes Inquiry (Spokes, 1988) as a therapeutic strategy to ensure that a coordinated safety-net of care for people with severe mental illness (SMI) was put in place in every district. Identification of those with SMI means that the approach includes all those accepted by mental health services; those with SMI need a coordinated multidisciplinary response. The CPA Audit Tool developed by the College Research Unit for the National Health Service Executive (NHSE) and disseminated to all districts in 1995/96 may be valuable in reassessing CPA implementation.

scholarly journals Invited commentary on The mental health of prisoners

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-201
Author(s):  
Tony Maden
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Mentally Disordered Offenders ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Mentally Disordered ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
The Government

Psychiatrists have always been concerned about the mental health of prisoners. If they did not devote much energy to their treatment, it was only because they had more-pressing problems, including how to squeeze ten patients into nine beds. In any case, it was someone else's job to look after prisoners. Luke Birmingham's article (Birmingham, 2003, this issue) could not be more timely, as this situation has now changed. With the publication of The Future Organisation of Prison Healthcare (Prison Service & NHS Executive Working Group, 1999), and the creation of a joint Department of Health and Home Office task force, the Government has made it clear that the problem of mentally disordered offenders belongs to the National Health Service (NHS). There is a plan, there is a partnership and there are targets. Can those of us who have been worrying about prisoners with mental illness sit back and relax, as the solution unfolds?

scholarly journals Medical staffing crisis in psychiatry

1998 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 239-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Jenkins ◽  
Jan Scott
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Royal College ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Health Service Executive ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
The Republic

This article summarises the findings of a National Health Service Executive, Royal College of Psychiatrists', National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, and Trust Federation working group on medical staffing in mental health, which reported to ministers in summer 1996 and was launched at a conference in November 1996 jointly with the College. Although primarily focused on England and Wales, it is clear that similar problems exist in other parts of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

scholarly journals Clinical Guidelines in Mental Health I: the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health

2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 156-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Kendall ◽  
Steve Pilling ◽  
Catherine Pettinari ◽  
Craig Whittington
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
National Health ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Guideline ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Severe Form

The first national clinical guideline for the National Health Service (NHS) was produced by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and launched in December 2002. That the first guideline to emerge was a guideline in mental health was important. Furthermore, that the guideline was about the treatment of the most severe form of mental illness, schizophrenia, has drawn a great deal of attention to the plight of people with mental health problems, both within NICE, its Citizens Council and Partners Council, and in the medical press (Battacharya & Gough, 2002; Mayor, 2002; Hargreaves, 2003).

scholarly journals The management of mental health problems among prisoners in England and Wales

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 56-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Senior ◽  
Louis Appleby ◽  
Jenny Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Community Mental Health ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Serious Mental Illness ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Turn Of The Century ◽  
England And Wales

This paper reviews the major organisational changes made to the delivery of mental healthcare in prisons in England and Wales since the turn of the century. These changes have included the introduction of ‘in-reach’ services for prisoners with serious mental illness, replicating the work of community mental health teams. In addition, healthcare budgets and commissioning responsibilities have been transferred to the National Health Service. Measures to reduce the rate of suicide in prisons are also considered.

The health service contact patterns of people with psychotic and non-psychotic forms of severe mental illness in New South Wales, Australia: A record-linkage study

2021 ◽  
pp. 000486742110314
Author(s):  
Rachael C Cvejic ◽  
Preeyaporn Srasuebkul ◽  
Adrian R Walker ◽  
Simone Reppermund ◽  
Julia M Lappin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Physical Health ◽  
Severe Mental Illness ◽  
New South ◽  
Service Utilisation ◽  
South Wales

Objective: To describe and compare the health profiles and health service use of people hospitalised with severe mental illness, with and without psychotic symptoms. Methods: We conducted a historical cohort study using linked administrative datasets, including data on public hospital admissions, emergency department presentations and ambulatory mental health service contacts in New South Wales, Australia. The study cohort comprised 169,306 individuals aged 12 years and over who were hospitalised at least once with a mental health diagnosis between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2014. Of these, 63,110 had a recorded psychotic illness and 106,196 did not. Outcome measures were rates of hospital, emergency department and mental health ambulatory service utilisation, analysed using Poisson regression. Results: People with psychotic illnesses had higher rates of hospital admission (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.26; 95% confidence interval [1.23, 1.30]), emergency department presentation (adjusted IRR 1.17; 95% confidence interval [1.13, 1.20]) and ambulatory mental health treatment days (adjusted IRR 2.90; 95% confidence interval [2.82, 2.98]) than people without psychotic illnesses. The higher rate of hospitalisation among people with psychotic illnesses was driven by mental health admissions; while people with psychosis had over twice the rate of mental health admissions, people with other severe mental illnesses without psychosis (e.g. mood/affective, anxiety and personality disorders) had higher rates of physical health admissions, including for circulatory, musculoskeletal, genitourinary and respiratory disorders. Factors that predicted greater health service utilisation included psychosis, intellectual disability, greater medical comorbidity and previous hospitalisation. Conclusion: Findings from this study support the need for (a) the development of processes to support the physical health of people with severe mental illness, including those without psychosis; (b) a focus in mental health policy and service provision on people with complex support needs, and (c) improved implementation and testing of integrated models of care to improve health outcomes for all people experiencing severe mental illness.

scholarly journals Advances in psychiatric treatment in primary care

2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Dowrick
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Psychiatric Treatment ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Breaking Work

Following ground-breaking work by Shepherd et al (1966) and, more recently, Goldberg & Huxley (1992), primary care is now recognised as the arena in which most contact occurs between the National Health Service (NHS) and people with mental health problems. General practitioners (GPs) remain the first, and in many cases the only, health professionals involved in the management of a whole range of conditions, from common anxiety and depressive disorders to severe and enduring mental illnesses.

scholarly journals Research productivity of staff in NHS mental health trusts: comparison using the Leiden method

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex J. Mitchell ◽  
John Gill
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
National Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Clinical Services ◽  
Health And Social Care

Aims and methodTo examine research productivity of staff working across 57 National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts in England. We examined research productivity between 2010 and 2012, including funded portfolio studies and all research (funded and unfunded).ResultsAcross 57 trusts there were 1297 National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) studies in 2011/2012, involving 46140 participants and in the same year staff in these trusts published 1334 articles (an average of only 23.4 per trust per annum). After correcting for trust size and budget, the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust was the most productive. In terms of funded portfolio studies, Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust as well as South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust had the strongest performance in 2011/2012.Clinical implicationsTrusts should aim to capitalise on valuable staff resources and expertise and better support and encourage research in the NHS to help improve clinical services.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document