Results for 'mental health services'
BUCKLAND Leonora, FIENNES Caroline
To investigate what may need to happen to help mental health charities make more evidence-informed decisions, this report examines how UK charities delivering mental health services currently produce, synthesise, disseminate and use evidence within their organisation. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 12 mental health service delivery charities of varying sizes and qualitative interviews with four mental health sector experts were carried out. The project used an inclusive definition of evidence comprising: evaluation evidence, user feedback; practitioner evidence and contextual evidence (e.g., research into the prevalence or type of need). In relation to the production of evidence, the report found that mental health charities have focused primarily on producing practitioner and stakeholder evidence. Although larger charities are beginning to carry out more evaluation research, lack of resources remain a problem. It also identified little evidence produced by the charities interviewed being routinely synthesised or included in systematic reviews; weak dissemination channels; and little use of third-party evidence when making decisions. Although the number of charities interviewed was small, the report identifies some important gaps including: the need for more rigorous evaluation research about the effectiveness of charities’ interventions; the potential to make more use of existing the academic literature; and, for more evidence to be actively disseminated within the sector to enable greater learning. Recommendations to improve evidence systems are also included.
NHS CLINICAL COMMISSIONERS
Presents four case studies to show how Clinical Commissioning Groups and their partners are commissioning early intervention initiatives in mental health services. The case studies cover: Hounslow’s Friends for Life programme, which is helping to boost the resilience of young people; Salford’s early intervention in psychosis; Coventry and Warwickshire’s maternal mental health service; Kernow’s suicide liaison service. The case studies outline progress to date and highlight the value of the intervention. The paper also provides six top tips for commissioners early intervention services in mental health.
Implementation plan which outlines a roadmap for delivering the commitments made in the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health to people who use services and the public in order to improve care. It prioritises objectives for delivery by 2020/21 and is intended as a blueprint for the changes that NHS staff, other organisations and other parts of the system can make. Key principles of the plan include co-production, working in partnership with local public, private and voluntary sector organisations; early interventions and delivering person-centred care. The plan also gives a clear indication to the public and people who use services what they can expect from the NHS, and when. It also outlines future funding commitments, shows how the workforce requirements will be delivered in these priority areas, and how data and payment will support transparency. Separate sections cover: children and young people’s mental health; perinatal mental health; adult mental health – including community, acute, crisis care and secure care; mental health and justice, and suicide prevention. These individual chapters set out national-level objectives, costs and planning assumptions. Chapters also describe cross-cutting work to help sustain transformation, including testing new models of care and ensuring the health and wellbeing of the NHS workforce.
This guidance describes the use of non-medical interventions, sometimes called ‘social prescribing’ or ‘community referral’, to improve mental health and wellbeing. Social prescribing supports improved access both to psychological treatments and to interventions addressing the wider determinants of mental health. It can contribute to greater awareness of the relative contribution to mental wellbeing of individual psychological skills and attributes (e.g. autonomy, positive affect and self-efficacy) and the circumstances of people’s lives: housing, employment, income and status. The guide: examines the benefits of social prescribing; outlines the policy context and evidence base for social prescribing; gives guidance on commissioning social prescribing; provides information on interventions and how to deliver social prescribing; and describes the findings of a social prescribing development project commissioned by Care Services Improvement Partnership (CSIP) North West. Overall, the guidance aims to support localities in developing, implementing and evaluating social prescribing schemes, with a special focus on mental health and wellbeing. The report recommends that social prescribing is made available as part of prevention and early intervention within primary care, and also to support recovery from severe mental distress.
This study examines the benefits, commonality and outcomes of three green care approaches, to help raise awareness, understanding and value placed on these services by mental health commissioners, thereby helping to increase the number of projects commissioned. Although the three approaches of social and therapeutic horticulture (STH), care farming and environmental conservation as an intervention are contextually different, in practice the approaches often feature similar activities and have a similar ethos. The paper examines their scale across the UK and the current commissioning routes for green care to help inform potential new nature-based service providers. An estimated 8,400 people with mental health problems receive STH services per week and at least 5,865 service users on 173 care farms receive services for mental ill-health per week. Available anecdotal evidence suggests there is growing interest and demand for these services though overall referrals from clinical commissioning groups or from GPs for green care services remains patchy and relatively uncommon. As a consequence there is significant unused capacity across all three green care services. This research seeks to explore these issues and set out the steps required to enable a greater number of nature-based interventions to be commissioned in mental health care.
NATIONAL VOICES, THINK LOCAL ACT PERSONAL
Describes some critical outcomes and success factors in the care, support and treatment of people who use mental health services, from their perspective. It is aimed at helping commissioners and service providers to organise person centred care and recovery oriented support for mental and physical health, and to know when they are achieving it. It offers a definition of personalised, coordinated care in mental health, agreed by people who use mental health services and people who work in health and social care; a series of ‘I statements’, expressing what personalised, coordinated care looks and feels like and some case studies of personalised, coordinated care in practice.
JOINT COMMISSIONING PANEL FOR MENTAL HEALTH
The Joint Commissioning Panel for Mental Health (JCP-MH) is a new collaboration co-chaired by the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which brings together leading organisations and individuals with an interest in commissioning for mental health and learning disabilities. Public mental health involves: an assessment of the risk factors for mental disorder, the protective factors for wellbeing, and the levels of mental disorder and wellbeing in the local population; the delivery of appropriate interventions to promote wellbeing, prevent mental disorder, and treat mental disorder early; and ensuring that people at ‘higher risk’ of mental disorder and poor wellbeing are proportionately prioritised in assessment and intervention delivery. This guide is about the commissioning of public mental health interventions to reduce the burden of mental disorder, enhance mental wellbeing, and support the delivery of a broad range of outcomes relating to health, education and employment. It is the second version of the public mental health guide: It has been revised and updated to include new sources of data and information.
JOINT COMMISSIONING PANEL FOR MENTAL HEALTH
This guide describes what ‘good’ mental health services for people from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities look like. While all of the Joint Commissioning Panel for Mental Health commissioning guides apply to all communities, there are good reasons why additional guidance is required on commissioning mental health services for people from BME communities. The document sets out the key priorities that should guide the commissioning of mental health services for BME groups. These include: supporting equitable access to effective interventions, and equitable experiences and outcomes; identifying and implementing specific measures to reduce ethnic inequalities in mental health; developing local strategies and plans for improving mental health and wellbeing amongst BME communities; making targeted investments in public mental health interventions for BME communities; involving service users, carers as well as members of local BME communities in the commissioning process; collecting, analysing, reporting, and acting upon data about ethnicity, service use, and outcomes; creating more accessible, broader, and flexible care pathways, and integrating services across the voluntary, community, social care and health sectors; ensuring every mental health service are culturally capable and able to address the diverse needs of a multi-cultural population through effective and appropriate forms of assessment and interventions; developing a number of strategies to reduce coercive care, which is experienced disproportionately by some BME groups. This guide focuses on services for working age adults. However, it could also be interpreted for commissioning specialist mental health services, such as CAMHS, secure psychiatric care, and services for older adults. It includes case-examples derived from an online survey of various BME stakeholder groups on the issue of quality in BME service provision
PERLE Jonathan G., NIERENBERG Barry
The authors believe that with the current and growing prevalence of mental illness a major shift and expansion of clinical practice must occur to overcome the mental health burden and facilitate positive change. This article offers an outline of, and case for, incorporating telehealth in mental health practice. For the purposes of this review, telehealth specifically refers to synchronous web camera-based interventions. Novel options, including mHealth (mobile) and the use of computer tablets, are discussed. The implications for practice including training are considered, as well as potential future directions for the field. It is concluded that the available data supports telehealth as an effective mode for the treatment of clients who are unable to pursue mental health services as they are available. It appears that with careful planning, telehealth systems can significantly impact the quality, timeliness, and availability of services in almost any mental health care system. The authors emphasise that the goal is not to substitute for a “real” person but to integrate telehealth into overall provision. In some cases a consistent face-to-face interaction may be the best care but this may not always be possible. The authors conclude by emphasising the importance of appropriate training for the mental health professionals if telehealth is to be effectively.
Purpose: This paper aims to describe a partnership visual arts project between Richmond Fellowship (a national mental health charity) and the Bluecoat arts centre in Liverpool involving participants with mental health problems.
Design/methodology/approach: The paper details the development of the project since September 2010 and, most importantly, the artistic development of the individuals who are still taking part and the improvements in their mental health and wellbeing. It also describes the development of the group in becoming an independent organisation.
Findings: Evaluation was undertaken at regular intervals through wellbeing questionnaires, one-to-one interviews and observation, which led to the following findings: with support, individuals with mental health problems experience significant benefit in engaging with the arts, to their mental health, their personal development and development as artists. Given time, they require less support and are willing to take on responsibilities, which has enabled them to become an independent organisation.
Social implications: This paper makes the case for the effectiveness of partnership working between mental health and arts organisations to improve mental health and social inclusion.
Originality/value: The paper adds to the body of evidence concerning the use of arts in recovery and of use to mental health organisations who are interested in using the arts in the process of support.