scholarly journals Evaluating patients and healthcare professionals' understanding of voting rights for patients in government elections

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S301-S301
Author(s):  
Mark Winchester ◽  
Madiha Majid ◽  
Ashok Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Health Staff ◽  
Mental Health Staff ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Right To Vote

AimsTo understand whether mental health patients vote in government electionsTo ascertain the barriers that prevent them from doing soTo explore ways in which mental health services can support patients to voteTo determine whether mental health staff are aware of patients’ right to voteBackgroundMembers of Parliament (MPs) can influence decisions regarding the National Health Service (NHS) and mental health legislation. The general election on 12th December 2019 highlighted that many patients were not using their democratic right to vote. It also appeared that many staff members were not aware that patients under the Mental Health Act (MHA) were entitled to vote (except for those under ‘forensic’ sections of the MHA). We therefore conducted a survey to ascertain both patient and staff understanding of their democratic rights and to better understand how we could increase the rate of voting amongst psychiatric patients.MethodTwo questionnaires were produced, one for patients and the other for staff members. This was tested by the clinical governance team before approval was granted. Data were collected at the Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust in the form of paper forms or electronically through a survey website. Forty-two patients and twenty-five staff members responded.ResultNo staff members had received formal training with regards to patients’ right to vote. Over half of staff members incorrectly believed that patients under Section 2 or 3 of the MHA and those lacking capacity couldn't vote. More than half of the team members surveyed stated that they had not supported patients in registering or casting a vote. Roughly one third of healthcare professionals felt that it was their responsibility to promote patients’ right to vote, with one third disagreeing and the remaining third unsure.Over 75% of patients did not vote but less than one quarter of all patients surveyed felt support from mental health services would increase the likelihood of them voting. The main barriers to voting were being mentally unwell, hospital admission or a lack of knowledge on the candidates and election process.ConclusionBasic training is required to improve staff knowledge of patients’ voting rights, which should help improve their ability to support patients to vote. Trusts should have a clear protocol in place in the event of future elections, with information on who can vote, how to request a postal vote and the candidates in that area.

Mental health care in London

2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (S2) ◽  
pp. s274-s278 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. De Ponte ◽  
G. Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Health Staff ◽  
Mental Health Staff ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Occupancy Rates

AbstractAimTo describe principles and characteristics of mental health care in London.MethodBased on existing data, service provision, number of professionals working in services, funding arrangements, pathways intocare, user/carer involvement and specific issues are reported.ResultsLondon experiences high levels of need and use of mental health services compared to England as a whole. Inpatient andcompulsory admissions are considerably higher than the national average. Despite having more psychiatric beds and mental health staff, London has higher bed occupancy rates and staffing shortages. At the same time there is a trend away from institutionalised care to care in the community.ConclusionMental health services in the UK are undergoing considerable reform. These changes will not remove the greater need formental health services in the capital, but national policy and funding lends support to cross-agency and pan-London work to tackle some of the problems characteristic of mental health in London. Whilst various issues of mental health care in London overlap with those in other European capitals, there also are some specific problems and features.

Preferences of dress and address: views of attendees and mental health professionals of the psychiatric services

2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Sim ◽  
Brian Hallahan ◽  
Colm McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Service User ◽  
Psychiatric Services ◽  
Health Staff ◽  
Mental Health Staff ◽  
Medical Terms

AbstractObjectives: The aim of this study was to determine the views of both individuals attending the mental health services (attendees) and mental health professionals in relation to how attendees and staff should be addressed, how attendees should be described, and how staff should be attired.Methods: We surveyed 132 attendees of the West Galway Mental Health Services and 97 mental health professionals in relation to how they prefer to be addressed (first name/ title and surname/ no preference) the description of attendees (patient / client / service user / no preference) and the attire of mental health staff (casual / smart / no preference). We also ascertained how mental health professionals believed attendees would view these issues.Results: Attendees preferred to be described as patients rather than clients or service users by all mental health professionals, with 46-54% of attendees preferring this term “patient” compared to 14-17% preferring the term “client”, 11-13% preferring the term “service user” and 20-25% having no preference (p < 0.001). They preferred to address doctors by their title and surname (61%) but other mental health professionals by their first names (60-69%) (p < 0.001). Attendees had a strong preference for being addressed by their first names by all the mental health professionals (86-91%) (p < 0.001). Doctors preferred to be attired formally (88%), compared to nurses (50%) or other mental health professionals (42%) (p = 0.002). Attendees had no preference in relation to the attire of doctors but preferred other mental health professionals to be attired informally.Conclusions: The study demonstrates that despite the increased use of several non-medical terms to describe attendees of mental health services; the preferred term of attendees of the psychiatric services in both in-patient and out-patient settings remains ‘patient’. However, this is not universally the case, and the ascertainment of the preference of the attendee at the first encounter with the health professional should be ascertained. We also demonstrated that attendees preferences in relation to both “dress and address” of doctors is significantly different to their preference for nurses or other allied mental health professionals; which may reflect a wish for a less familiar and more formal interaction with doctors.

General Practitioners and Mental Health Staff Sharing Patient Care: Working Model

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Horner ◽  
Kim Asher
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
General Practitioner ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Shared Care ◽  
Health Staff ◽  
Mental Health Staff ◽  
Care Programme ◽  
Care Protocol

Objective: The paper describes a shared care programme developed by mental health services and general practitioners for shifting patients with chronic psychiatric disorders to the care of a general practitioner. The programme is characterized by: (i) a dedicated mental health service general practitioner liaison position to manage the programme and provide support to both patients and doctors; (ii) a multidisciplinary care planning meeting that includes mental health staff, the patient, the general practitioner and a carer; and (iii) a jointly developed individual management plan that specifies patient issues, strategies to deal with these issues, persons responsible for monitoring and a review date. Methods: The shared care protocol, the results of a review of patient mental health indicators and general practitioner satisfaction with the programme are described. Results: Outcomes to date suggest that patients' mental health is not compromised and may be enhanced by transfer to general practitioners within the shared care model. Indicators of mental health outcomes (Health of the Nation Outcome Scale and Life Skills Profile scores) show improved patient symptomatology and functioning in most cases. Conclusions: The programme fits the model of recovery-based mental health services and complies with current local, state and Commonwealth policies that encourage integrated and collaborative approaches by mental health services and general practitioners in delivering mental health care to persons with chronic mental illness.

scholarly journals Improved investment in mental health services: value for money?

2008 ◽  
Vol 192 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Health Staff ◽  
Central Control ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Mental Health Staff ◽  
The Past ◽  
Local Initiatives

BackgroundThis paper examines what has been achieved in the specialist mental health services by the vastly increased health expenditures that the National Health Service (NHS) has enjoyed in the past 5 years.AimsTo describe the way money has been spent in specialist mental health services and examine why problems remain after such admirable changes to already available resources.MethodChanges in staff employed by mental health services, where the extra staff are deployed, and patterns of expenditure within the whole service and within community mental health teams are examined.ResultsSome of the new expenditure has been well spent, and has produced improvements in the service. However, one must also take account of the costs of the greatly increased numbers of managers, who impose two sorts of costs: that of their own salaries, and the opportunity costs of front-line staff having to attend meetings and write reports rather than seeing patients. Throughout the rest of the NHS, money has been wasted on needless reorganisations, on consultant and general practitioner contracts, and on information technology that has so far failed to deliver tangible advantages.ConclusionsThe emphasis on central control undermines local initiatives and wastes resources. Some central control is inevitable, but policies need to be developed in collaboration with clinicians. At local level, expenditure by primary care trusts and mental health trusts also needs to be scrutinised by committees that should include representatives of front-line mental health staff.

scholarly journals A psychiatrist's perspective from a COVID-19 epicentre: a personal account

BJPsych Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabella Pacchiarotti ◽  
Gerard Anmella ◽  
Giovanna Fico ◽  
Norma Verdolini ◽  
Eduard Vieta
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Rebound Effect ◽  
Personal Account ◽  
Huge Impact

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has and will have a huge impact on mental health, especially in countries that have been significantly affected, such as Spain. Aims Here we aim to provide the perspectives of a group of psychiatrists from Barcelona, one of the epicentres of the pandemic so far, to highlight the potential fatality of a virus that caught us unaware and unprepared, and hopefully this article will be of aid to countries about to face the pandemic. Results The unprecedented situations that we have been faced with so far have included reconfiguring hospitals and the redeployment of healthcare professionals, with flexibility and adaptability key to managing the overload in demand. This has led to healthcare professionals being exposed to extremely stressful situations and they have had impossible decisions to make that may have mental health consequences, some of which may be severe and long lasting. Conclusions A rebound effect on mental health problems is to be expected in the medium and long term, especially for healthcare professionals and psychiatric patients, necessitating a strengthening of preventive approaches and policies for mental health along with a prompt reopening of mental health services. Ways to provide psychiatric healthcare in the immediate future need to be re-evaluated, and the development of telepsychiatry services is probably to be expected.

scholarly journals Risk: more questions than answers

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Holloway
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Social Role ◽  
Mental Health Policy ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Health Staff ◽  
Mental Health Staff ◽  
Policy And Practice

The rise of the risk industry in psychiatry in England and Wales can be given a precise date: 17 December 1992. That was the day that Christopher Clunis, a man who had been in contact with psychiatric services for some 6 years, murdered Jonathan Zito in an unprovoked attack. This tragedy received enormous publicity and resulted in a flurry of activity within the Department of Health. As a result of the moral panic surrounding Clunis, which crystallised long-term trends, the assessment and management of risk became a central focus of mental health policy and practice (Holloway, 1996). Risk remains a core issue, and indeed mental health services have come to be seen as a key element in a strategy for public protection that aims to keep people who are identified as a potential risk to others off the streets. (We await, with some professional trepidation, the legislation that will provide a sufficiently broad definition of mental illness to fully legitimate this social role.) Mental health staff are now required by government policy and their employers to assess an ever-expanding range of risks – most recently, following the Victoria Climbié Inquiry (House of Commons Health Committee, 2003), risks to dependent children, generally with the aid of unvalidated risk assessment tools. Increasingly, mainstream mental health services are being expected to provide interventions for people whose presenting problems are risky behaviours (or even risky feelings) rather than to offer treatment for mental illness.

The Practice of Community Psychiatric Nursing and Mental Health Social Work in Salford Some Implications for Community Care

1988 ◽  
Vol 152 (6) ◽  
pp. 783-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Wooff ◽  
D. P. Goldberg ◽  
T. Fryers
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Symptoms ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Psychiatric Nurses ◽  
Health Staff ◽  
Mental Health Staff ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Community Psychiatric ◽  
Wide Range

The context and content of work undertaken with individual clients by community psychiatric nurses (CPNs) and mental health social workers (MHSWs) in Salford were found to be significantly different. Although there were some areas of overlap, the ways in which the two professions worked were quite distinct. MHSWs discussed a wide range of topics and were as concerned with clients' interactions with family and community networks as they were with symptoms. Their interviews with schizophrenic clients followed a similar pattern to those with other groups, and they worked closely with psychiatrists and other mental health staff. CPNs, on the other hand, focused mainly on psychiatric symptoms, treatment arrangements, and medications, and spent significantly less time with individual psychotic clients than they did with patients suffering from neuroses. They were as likely to be in contact with general practitioners as they were with psychiatrists, and had fewer contacts with other mental health staff than the MHSWs. There was evidence that the long-term care of chronic psychiatric patients living outside hospital required more co-ordinated long-term multidisciplinary input.

Needs for care in psychiatric patients: a systematic review. I. General concepts and assessment measures. Needs for services

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Lasalvia ◽  
Benedetta Stefani ◽  
Mirella Ruggeri
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
General Population ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Needs For Care ◽  
Number Of Patients

SummaryObjective – In Italy, mental health care is in phase of reorganisation. In this frame the measurement of users' needs may be a useftil tool in planning individualised mental health service interventions and in their evaluation. Aims of the present study are (I) to highlight the basic concepts of 'needs for care' and give a brief description of the main needs assessment tools specifically developed for psychiatric patients; (II) to review studies assessing needs for mental health services in the general population; (III) to discuss the role played by the assessment of needs in planning mental health care. Methods – Studies published in the international literature from January 1980 to June 1999 were reviewed. The studies were located through a computerised search of the databases MEDLINE and PsycLit; in addition, the reference lists of the studies located through the computerised search and the content of main international psychiatric journals were manually scanned in order to avoid possible omissions. Studies assessing needs for services and studies assessing needs on individual level were separately reviewed. Both groups of studies, in turn, were divided in studies assessing needs for mental health care in the general population and in psychiatric patients. Results – Although most studies on needs for services used indirect methodologies and employed quite heterogeneous experimental design, they provide at large overlapping results. In the general population, about 60%- 70% of patients with anxiety, depression and other neurotic disorders and 30%-40% of psychotic patients do not receive any specialist mental health care, suggesting that the majority of subjects suffering from a psychiatric disorder do not receive the mental health care they need. Conclusions – Unmet needs for services show a higher frequency in patients with neurotic and depressive disorders, indicating a shortage in services delivery that should be taken into account both by psychiatrists and mental health planners. Moreover, the finding that a large number of patients suffering from psychotic disorders do not receive any kind of mental health care is of particular relevance for planning mental health services, since these subjects are usually the most problematic and difficult to treat.

Domestic violence and severe psychiatric disorders: prevalence and interventions

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 881-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. M. Howard ◽  
K. Trevillion ◽  
H. Khalifeh ◽  
A. Woodall ◽  
R. Agnew-Davies ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
English Language ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Lifetime Prevalence ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
High Prevalence

BackgroundThe lifetime prevalence of domestic violence in women is 20–25%. There is increasing recognition of the increased vulnerability of psychiatric populations to domestic violence. We therefore aimed to review studies on the prevalence of, and the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions in, psychiatric patients experiencing domestic violence.MethodLiterature search using Medline, PsycINFO and EMBASE applying the following inclusion criteria: English-language papers, data provided on the prevalence of or interventions for domestic violence, adults in contact with mental health services.ResultsReported lifetime prevalence of severe domestic violence among psychiatric in-patients ranged from 30% to 60%. Lower rates are reported for men when prevalence is reported by gender. No controlled studies were identified. Low rates of detection of domestic violence occur in routine clinical practice and there is some evidence that, when routine enquiry is introduced into services, detection rates improve, but identification of domestic violence is rarely used in treatment planning. There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of routine enquiry in terms of morbidity and mortality, and there have been no studies investigating specific domestic violence interventions for psychiatric patients.ConclusionsThere is a high prevalence of domestic violence in psychiatric populations but the extent of the increased risk in psychiatric patients compared with other populations is not clear because of the limitations of the methodology used in the studies identified. There is also very limited evidence on how to address domestic violence with respect to the identification and provision of evidence-based interventions in mental health services.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document