Clues about Evidence for Mental Health Care in Community Settings – Assertive Outreach

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
pp. 10-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Dodd
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-20
Author(s):  
T. Burns

Community mental health care in the UK was established by two influential mental health acts (MHAs). The 1930 MHA legislated for voluntary admissions and outpatient clinics. The 1959 MHA required hospitals to provide local follow- up after discharge, required them to work closely with local social services and obliged social services to help with accommodation and support. An effect of this was to establish highly sectorized services for populations of about 50,000. These were served by multidisciplinary teams (generic CMHTs), which accepted all local referrals from family doctors. Sector CMHTs evolved a pragmatic approach with an emphasis on skill-sharing and outreach, depending heavily on community psychiatric nurses. The NHS is funded by central taxation, with no distortion of clinical practice by per-item service fees. It is highly centrally regulated, with a strong emphasis on evidence-based treatments.Since 2000, generic sector teams have gradually been replaced or enhanced by Crisis Resolution Home Treatment teams, Assertive Outreach Teams and Early Intervention Teams. Assertive Outreach Teams were resorbed into CMHTs, based on outcome evidence. The last decade has seen a major expansion in outpatient psychotherapy (Improving Access to Psychological Treatments (IAPT) services) and in specialist teams for personality disorders and perinatal psychiatry. The traditional continuity of care across the inpatient-outpatient divide has recently been broken. During the last decade of austerity, day care services have been decimated, and (along with the reduction in availability of beds) compulsory admission rates have risen sharply. Mental health care is still disadvantaged, receiving 11% of the NHS spend while accounting for 23% of the burden of disease.


Author(s):  
Charles L. Scott ◽  
Brian Falls

An increasing number of individuals with mental illness are now treated in correctional environments instead of community settings. In the incarcerated population, prevalence estimates of serious mental illness (SMI) range from 9 to 20% compared to 6% in the community. More astonishingly, over three times more persons with serious mental illness in the United States are located in jails and prisons than in hospitals. It was not always like this. How did U.S. correctional systems become de facto mental health institutions for so many? Scholars point to a number of reasons for the increasing prevalence of mental illness among incarcerated individuals, including deinstitutionalization and limited community resources, prominent court decisions and legislative rulings, and the ‘revolving door’ phenomenon. There are many similarities between correctional and community mental health care services. Both systems typically provide appropriate medications, emergency care, hospitalization, medication management, and follow-up care. However, key differences often exist in correctional systems, including restricted formularies due to concerns of medication abuse or cost, alternative involuntary medication procedures, restricted access by visitors, and the inability of mental health providers to control the treatment environment. This chapter summarizes the historical context of correctional versus community mental health; factors resulting in the increasing management of people with mental illness in correctional settings; and similarities and differences between the provision of mental health care in correctional versus community settings.


2002 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shekhar Saxena ◽  
Pallab K. Maulik ◽  
Kathryn O'Connell ◽  
Benedetto Saraceno

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 117863291986224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nam Tran ◽  
Jeffrey W Poss ◽  
Christopher Perlman ◽  
John P Hirdes

As mental health care transitions from facility-based care to community-based services, methods to classify patients in terms of their expected health care resource use are an essential tool to balance the health care needs and equitable allocation of health care resources. This study performed a scoping review to summarize the nature, extent, and range of research on case-mix classifications used to predict mental health care resource use in community settings. This study identified 17 eligible studies with 32 case-mix classification systems published since the 1980s. Most of these studies came from the USA Veterans Affairs and Medicare systems, and the most recent studies came from Australia. There were a wide variety of choices of input variables and measures of resource use. However, much of the variance in observed resource use was not accounted for by these case-mix systems. The research activity specific to case-mix classification for community mental health care was modest. More consideration should be given to the appropriateness of the input variables, resource use measure, and evaluation of predictive performance. Future research should take advantage of testing case-mix systems developed in other settings for community mental health care settings, if possible.


1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
O. Lawrence ◽  
J.D. Gostin

In the summer of 1979, a group of experts on law, medicine, and ethics assembled in Siracusa, Sicily, under the auspices of the International Commission of Jurists and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science, to draft guidelines on the rights of persons with mental illness. Sitting across the table from me was a quiet, proud man of distinctive intelligence, William J. Curran, Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Legal Medicine at Harvard University. Professor Curran was one of the principal drafters of those guidelines. Many years later in 1991, after several subsequent re-drafts by United Nations (U.N.) Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes, the text was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly as the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. This was the kind of remarkable achievement in the field of law and medicine that Professor Curran repeated throughout his distinguished career.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nosheen Akhtar ◽  
Cheryl Forchuk ◽  
Katherine McKay ◽  
Sandra Fisman ◽  
Abraham Rudnick

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Loos ◽  
Reinhold Kilian ◽  
Thomas Becker ◽  
Birgit Janssen ◽  
Harald Freyberger ◽  
...  

Objective: There are presently no instruments available in German language to assess the therapeutic relationship in psychiatric care. This study validates the German version of the Scale to Assess the Therapeutic Relationship in Community Mental Health Care (D-STAR). Method: 460 persons with severe mental illness and 154 clinicians who had participated in a multicenter RCT testing a discharge planning intervention completed the D-STAR. Psychometric properties were established via item analysis, analyses of missing values, internal consistency, and confirmatory factor analysis. Furthermore, convergent validity was scrutinized via calculating correlations of the D-STAR scales with two measures of treatment satisfaction. Results: As in the original English version, fit indices of a 3-factor model of the therapeutic relationship were only moderate. However, the feasibility and internal consistency of the D-STAR was good, and correlations with other measures suggested reasonable convergent validity. Conclusions: The psychometric properties of the D-STAR are acceptable. Its use can be recommended in German-speaking countries to assess the therapeutic relationship in both routine care and research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document