scholarly journals Invited commentary on The mental health of prisoners

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-201
Author(s):  
Tony Maden

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?

2005 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 365-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kingsley Norton ◽  
Julian Lousada ◽  
Kevin Healy

Following the publication by the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE) of Personality Disorder: No Longer A Diagnosis of Exclusion (National Institute for Mental Health in England, 2003), it is perhaps surprising that so soon after there have been threats to the survival of some of the small number of existing specialist personality disorder services to which it refers. Indeed, one of the few in-patient units specialising in such disorders (Webb House in Crewe) closed in July 2004. Such closures or threats argue for closer collaboration in planning between the relevant secondary and tertiary services and also between the Department of Health, the NIMHE and local National Health Service commissioners. Not safeguarding existing tertiary specialist services, at a time of increasing awareness of the needs of patients with personality disorders, may be short-sighted.


1972 ◽  
Vol 120 (557) ◽  
pp. 433-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. G. Morgan ◽  
R. M. Compton

Department of Health and Social Security statistics show a steady rise in the use of outpatient services from the inception of the National Health Service; since the Mental Health Act of 1959, the numbers of new outpatient and clinic attendances have increased by one-third and one-fifth respectively (D.H.S.S., 1971). However, as our knowledge of the actual functions of out-patient services and their relationship to in-patient care is at best only rudimentary, the recent article by Mezey and Evans (Journal, June 1971, 118, p. 609) is a much needed contribution towards evaluating these different facilities of the psychiatric services.


Author(s):  
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff ◽  
Ed Marsden

<p>In 1994 the Department of Health published its guidance on the discharge of mentally disordered people and their continuing care in the community (HSG (94) 27) which established, for the first time, that when a mental health service user kills someone <em>“it will always be necessary to hold an Inquiry which is independent of the providers involved”</em>. The independent investigation (as these inquiries are now called) would take place after the completion of any legal proceedings and its purpose was stated to be: <em>“To learn lessons for the future”</em>. The independent investigation would be commissioned by the responsible strategic health authority, which would also decide on whether to publish it and, if so, in what form.</p>


1999 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. 711-714 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Kennedy

This is one of three articles describing how one National Health Service (NHS) trust is tackling clinical governance. The first is by the trust chief executive, the ‘accountable officer’ in the White Paper The New NHS (Department of Health, 1997). The second is by the trust's director of research and development whose responsibilities include assisting clinical directorates to carry out an annual programme of improvements in clinical effectiveness. The third paper is by the mental health lead clinician’ for clinical governance.


2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (12) ◽  
pp. 443-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Jacob ◽  
Eluned Dorkins ◽  
Helen Smith

The National Health Service (NHS) is undergoing extensive modernisation. Central to this process is the move away from a professional-led health service to a patient-centred system, which offers patients the ‘power’ to make decisions about their healthcare. In 2003, the government announced their plans for ‘patient choice’ within the NHS (Department of Health, 2003).


2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 450-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayanth Srinivas ◽  
Sarah Denvir ◽  
Martin Humphreys

Over the years, the number of mentally disordered offenders in England and Wales subject to restriction orders has steadily increased. The Home Secretary, through the Mental Health Unit at the Home Office, is responsible for overseeing the treatment of these individuals. As psychiatrists work in partnership with the Mental Health Unit in the treatment of these patients, it is essential to understand the Unit's role and functions. In this article, we describe the philosophy, structure and functions of the Mental Health Unit and its statutory role in the care of mentally disordered offenders subject to restriction orders.


1999 ◽  
Vol 175 (6) ◽  
pp. 544-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gyles R. Glover ◽  
Morven Leese ◽  
Paul McCrone

BackgroundThe greater frequency of mental illness in deprived and inner-city populations is well recognised; allocation of funds in the UK health service makes some allowance for this. However, it is not clear whether the differences are similar for all levels of mental health care need.AimsTo study the range in prevalence of mental health problems and care at primary care, general secondary care and forensic care levels.MethodWe used mainly descriptive statistics to study evidence available from existing sources – some based on indicators of likely need, some on observed prevalance of treatment.ResultsAmong English health authority areas, the most morbid have about twice the prevalence of primary care level mental illness of the least morbid. For secondary care the ratio is between 2.5 and 4 to 1, while for services for mentally disordered offenders it is in excess of 20:1.ConclusionsWhere needs indices are used for resource allocation, responsible authorities should ensure that they produce ranges reflecting the full compass of services funded. For forensic services the range of morbidity levels may be so great that funding needs to rest at a larger population level than that of health authorities.


2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 156-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Kendall ◽  
Steve Pilling ◽  
Catherine Pettinari ◽  
Craig Whittington

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).


1999 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 399-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Femi Oyebode ◽  
Nick Brown ◽  
Elizabeth Parry

Clinical governance is defined by the government as:“a framework through which [National Health Service (NHS)] organisations are accountable for continuously improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high standards of care by creating an environment in which excellence in clinical care will flourish'’ (emphasis not in original) (Department of Health (DOH), 1998).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document