The Australian National Mental Health Policy - Literature review Example

Policy Analysis and Critique Name Institution Policy Analysis and Critique Introduction The term policy refers to a governing guideline that abides by organizational or state goals to achieve the prospected outcome. It is simply a goal oriented principle and is executed in a procedural manner. Firstly, the setting up and adoption of policies is a process chaired by the governing body of a particular nation or organization. Secondly, there are senior executive officers who determine the procedural execution of any adopted policy. Apart from inclining the organization to its goals, policies may play an important role in objective and subjective processes of decision making. The subjective role of policies helps the relevant senior staff in evaluating a number of alternatives before arriving at a final decision (Burgess, Pirkis, Coombs, & Rosen, 2011). On the other hand, the objective role of decision making aids in evaluating the viability of existing resolutions. The term policy describes the protocols followed in various organizations, including the government, corporations, groups, and individuals. However, policies differ from laws in that the latter restrict certain behaviors regardless of whether the restrictions will propel the organization to achieve its goals or not. On the contrary, the enactment and adoption of policies aids in guiding the organization to achieve its goals. A policy study refers to the procedure of drafting crucial organizational decisions. It involves the presentation and evaluation of various policy approaches. The approaches may include expenditure protocols, and other beneficial programs. The committee in charge chooses the best alternative from the list presented to it, based on viability. The categories of policies range from political to financial, administrative, and managerial. The common aspect of all the varieties of policies is that they direct the organization to achieving its goals (Drapalski, Medoff, Unick, Velligan, Dixon, & Bellack, 2012). Policy governance is widely distributed in all sectors around the world. Australia is not an exception and more specifically its health sector. The health sector of Australia represents one of the major sectors heavily governed by policies. The sector is constantly reforming its policies to meet its ever expanding divisions. Some of the notable divisions governed by the relevant policies include mental health care, palliative care, and social health care among other divisions. The mental sector has many policies governing its operation. One notable example is the national mental health recovery framework (Cleary, Horsfall, Hunt, Escott, & Happell, 2011). There is a need to describe the framework followed in adopting and executing the mental health care policies. The aim of this paper is to critically analyze the framework and adoption of the national mental health recovery policy in Australia. In addition, it critiques the viability of the policy in terms of its efficiency and effectiveness. Policy Analysis and Critique Policy Summary The national mental health recovery policy provides new directions to the existing mental guidelines (Zwi, Blignault, Bunde-Birouste, Ritchie, & Silove, 2011). Consequently, it improves and enhances the delivery of mental health services in Australia. The policy combines a wide variety of recovery-oriented policies enacted in different Australian states. In addition, the policy draws contributions from both national and international research projects to provide a consistent framework to recovery-oriented service delivery in the mental health care system. Moreover, it acts as a complement to the existing standard and competent policies. In simple terms, it is an overall mental care cover policy. The policy covers the expectations of patients suffering from mental disabilities and their families. The policy brings together experiences, knowledge, and skills of mental health practitioners to challenge the traditional beliefs of incurability of mental illnesses (Byrne, Happell, Welch, & Moxham, 2013). According to Sklar, Groessl, O'connell, Davidson, and Aarons (2013), the policy indirectly challenges the traditional ideologies of mental professionalism and expertise with new technological strategies. The policy framework covers cultural and social change; for this reason, it positively influences the integration of skills and expertise in the mental health care system. Additionally, the framework increases the input by professionals with vast experience in the mental health care system. All the involved individuals, in spite of their seniority, discipline, role, consumer contact, profession, or position held in the mental health care system, utilize this policy to govern the country’s recovery-oriented service delivery and medical practices. The policy structure consists of volunteers, leaders, managers, medical practitioners, researchers, service planners, and policy developers among others. It is an extensive policy with a framework that describes the recovery and existing expertise in a conclusive manner. Its framework is divided into various domains that govern recovery-oriented guidelines in the mental health care division (Fuller et al., 2011; Everett, 2012). In addition, the policy influences the health care workforce to consider the diversity of mental health disorders. Its formation resulted from extensive research, consultation, and lived experiences. Due to its diversity, there are two documents that are in charge of the coverage of the policy framework (Williams et al., 2012). The first document provides the state framework for recovery-oriented service delivery in the mental health care division. It is a guide for mental health practitioners to provide quality services in the mental field. The second document acts as a companion to the first document; it enlists the background policies and theories covered by the national policy for recovery-oriented service delivery in the mental health care division. Additionally, it highlights the extensive research that led to the creation of the policy. Alternatively, the document gives the current and future prospective changes expected in the mental health care system (Gushulak & Macpherson, 2011). For that reason, it is clear that the Australian government has invested a lot in the drafting and implementation of the mental health policy. It has improved service delivery in the mental health care system for three decades. In addition, the policy has improved the rehabilitation process that caters for the psychological requirements of mentally disabled persons (Berry, Hogan, Owen, Rickwood, & Fragar, 2011). The whole policy framework came from an intensive consultation process that included organizations and individuals across Australia. The collection of data involved consultation forums, written submissions, and online surveys. It is a masterpiece policy that surpasses any policy framework ever proposed and implemented in Australia. Critique of Policy Formulation Framework According to Happell et al. (2011), there are two broad divisions of policy impact, including intended and unintended effects. The intended impacts of a particular policy vary extensively, depending on the organization and the policy context. They are enacted to barricade misgivings noticed in a particular organization. Hence, they provide beneficial protocols to the organization. The mental health recovery policy is an example of a policy that tends to avoid negativity in the mental health care division. On the other hand, the unintended impacts of the policy describe the side effects of the policy. Since policies are meant to govern an intricate adaptive system, slight changes in the policy affect existing structures by yielding counterintuitive impacts (Edgley, Stickley, Wright, & Repper, 2012). For example, changes in the mental health care recovery policy may influence the tax charged on hospital bills. Moreover, it may scare away patients due to augmented hospital costs. For that reason, in the formulation of a given policy, senior officials have to analyze the impacts of the policy implementation process. This is important to ensure that the policy produces intended impacts rather than unintended ones. Additionally, this process reduces the chance of yielding unintended impacts. Mental health care systems tend to have intricate adaptive systems that require scrutiny of the policies before implementation (Mckechnie, 2013). The policy impact represents the initial step in the formulation of any given policy, especially in the mental health care system. However, there are four main procedures followed in the formulation of a given mental health care policy; particularly, the national mental health recovery policy. The four steps include identification of the problem in mental health care, formulation of the policy, implementation of the policy framework, and evaluation of the results (Cowan, Banks, Crawshaw, & Clifton, 2011). The execution of the procedures occurs in an orderly manner to ensure that the process lacks discrepancies. After the implementation stage, a given policy may prove inappropriate following analysis of its outcomes. This leads to changes that follow the same framework of formulation. Consequently, the results turn the policy framework into a policy cycle. According to Piat, Sabetti, and Bloom (2010), the terminologies used in the process of policy making differ in various organizations, but they all conform to the above listed protocol. There is a need to expound on the policy formulation process to achieve a better understanding of the protocol. The first step involves the process of identifying the problem in the mental health care system. The process does not only involve recognition of the problem, but also studying to find the key causative factors. In addition, the stage involves determining the public awareness of the issue, identifying the participants to be involved in the decision making process, and considering the available means of implementing the policy. All these processes occurred in the initial formulation of the national mental health recovery policy in Australia (Moxham, Mccann, Usher, Farrell, & Crookes, 2011). In this particular case, the need to establish a recovery protocol in mental health care prompted the formulation of the policy. Initially, the mental health care system lacked a means of defining the provisions of mental disability. Since mentally ill patients have no clear conscience of their health requirements, such a system makes them vulnerable to manipulation from both the health care givers and the government. The second step involves the formulation of the policy to block the problem. This step follows the identification and analysis of the problem (Shanks, Williams, Leamy, Bird, Boutillier, & Slade, 2013). It mainly involves round table discussions and brain-storming sessions between different lobby groups, stakeholders, independent individuals, and government officials. The discussions involve the analysis of the potential problems, the suggestion of different resolutions, and the formulation of comprehensible goals. Moreover, the officials must list steps for the implementation of the drafted policy. It is the most difficult step of policy making, as it determines its success or failure. Several compromises are made in this step to necessitate the final drafting of the policy. Subsequently, the participants hand the draft document to the officials who have the mandate to either implement or reject it. In the case of the national mental health recovery policy, the government chaired the discussions that involved independent lobby groups and medical practitioners (Mcgorry, Bates, & Birchwood, 2013). The policy was passed without major changes due to its valid considerations. It is important to note that government officials are likely to reject strong policies because they tend to deal with obstacles in a direct, rather than amicable manner. The third step involves the implementation of the policy to change the current situation. The step involves determining the appropriate institutions and organizations to implement the policy. The process may seem difficult if the organization tasked with the implementation process fails to meet the intended goals. The compromises made during the development of the policy may also cultivate defiance from the groups tasked with policy implementation (Mcgeorge, 2012). This is normally due to the scraping off, of some of the important elements that favor their priorities. Moreover, they are unlikely to get enough motivation to implement the policy efficiently and effectively. Other factors that may influence the poor implementation of policies, as suggested by Robertson et al. (2010), include the lack of appropriate communication, coordination, and sufficient funds. In the case of the national mental health recovery policy in Australia, the implementation process rests in the hands of medical practitioners. So far, the implementation of the policy portrays success; however, the policy does not cover all problems experienced in the mental health care system. The final step in policy formulation is evaluating the impacts of the implemented policy. It is a continuous process that involves analysis at designated periods to determine the viability of the policy. It also involves various changes in the initial policy to ensure that it meets its original goals (March, Salzberg, & Hopwood, 2013). This may lead to the creation of other new policies that address either a similar or different aspect of health care. Another important factor is that the step ensures that enough financial support is available for the continuity of the implementation process. Since it is the last step in policy formation, it is not considered very important like the other three steps. However, policy makers stress the need to have appropriate steps in ensuring the effective implementation of policies (Leamy, Bird, Boutillier, Williams, & Slade, 2011). Hence, it is only through constant analysis that the implementers can know if the awareness process is beneficial to the intended individuals or not. Moreover, this can help identify the limiting factors in the implementation process. In the case of the national mental health recovery policy, it is the medical practitioners who have the mandate to determine the success of the policy. Contextual Analysis Firstly, the creation of this policy resulted from the need for quality service in recovery-oriented mental health care. The groups behind this change include individuals with lived experiences, families, peers, friends, non-governmental organizations, and the mental health care sector at large. However, Australian policymakers and mental health care practitioners are behind the inclusion of cultural changes in the sector. At the moment, all states in Australia have embedded the policy in their policy statutes and transformation platforms. The recovery policy agrees to the provisions of the national policy directives relating to the mental health care system (Kakuma et al., 2011). Moreover, there are plans to prioritize culture-dependent recovery orientation in the mental health care system. The policy also agrees with the global and state human rights developments. Secondly, on the social aspect, the recovery aspect of the policy targets several aspects that include families, communities, history, privileges, oppressions, individuals, social determinants, and contextual culture (Hinton & Nagel, 2012). The secret behind recovery is found in developmental stages, age, gender, and sex. Most of mental recovery by victims happens at home; for that reason, friends, families, work environments, and communities play an important role in the recovery process. Community involvement creates a connection between the mental health care providers and the patients, which determines the success or failure of the recovery process. Moreover, the connection eliminates chances of discrimination and other social inequities that may hinder the mental recovery (Smith-Merry, Freeman, & Sturdy, 2011). Thirdly, Australia’s statute on standard mental health services of 2010 outlines the national recovery policy (Rosen, Goldbloom, & McGeorge, 2010). The main factors highlighted by the statute include principles of mental recovery and standard recovery guidelines. The organizations that provide mental health care should follow those guidelines to enhance service delivery and influence positive mental recovery. Additionally, the policy outlines strict measures which should be taken if a given organizations fails to observe the guidelines. It is a legally punishable crime by Australian law if an organization is found breaking the policy guidelines. Moreover, the policy unites all levels of the Australian society; consequently, no particular organization can attempt to violate the provisions of the policy. Every mental health care provider in Australia is being watched from all corners. Due to this, all institutions are focused on upholding the mandate of the policy. The national framework outlines several measures used to assess the organization’s orientation to the recovery policy (Gordon, Ellis, Siegert, & Walkey, 2013). Fourthly, the recovery policy approaches provide a transparent conceptual strategy for service delivery in the mental health care system. It provides a rich culture that comprises of lived experiences and insights, which aid in the mental health recovery process. The policy revolves around people’s desire to provide quality services to mentally disabled individuals (Durey, Wynaden, Barr, & Ali, 2013). The policy overcomes the physical, social, and psychological barriers that hinder mental recovery. This is because the policy was conceived for the mentally disabled individuals by the Australian people. The recovery policy recognizes the need to bring together the expertise, skills, and knowledge of mental health care practitioners with lived experiences. Consequently, the collaboration challenges the various traditional ideologies and constraints to mental recovery. The policy ensures that mentally ill individuals are given the support and respect they need during the mental recovery process (Boutillier, Leamy, Bird, Davidson, Williams, & Slade, 2011). Conclusion The Mental Health, Drug and Alcohol Principal Committee saw the establishment of a national policy on recovery-oriented mental health care services. The information for the creation of the policy came from an extensive procedure that included consultations and submissions from different factions. The main contribution came from the existing body of mental health policies. The policy was a true reflection of lived experiences relating to mental recovery. A critical analysis of the policy’s procedural formation shows that it followed the appropriate steps. However, the policy is yet to achieve its prospected benefits fully. For it to be fully successful, it requires a constant analysis to reinforce the weak areas of implementation. In addition, the mental health care system attributes its thirty year old success to the national recovery policy. In conclusion, the adoption of an appropriate policy formulation framework enabled the creation and implementation of the national mental recovery policy, which comprises all the relevant guidelines. References Berry, H. L., Hogan, A., Owen, J., Rickwood, D., & Fragar, L. (2011). Climate change and farmers' mental health: risks and responses. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 23(2 Suppl), 119S-132S. Boutillier, C. L., Leamy, M., Bird, V. J., Davidson, L., Williams, J., & Slade, M. (2011). What does recovery mean in practice?: A qualitative analysis of international recovery-oriented practice guidance. Psychiatric Services, 62(12), 1470-1476. Burgess, P., Pirkis, J., Coombs, T., & Rosen, A. (2011). Assessing the value of existing recovery measures for routine use in Australian mental health services. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 45(4), 267-280. Byrne, L., Happell, B., Welch, T., & Moxham, L. J. (2013). ‘Things you can't learn from books’: Teaching recovery from a lived experience perspective. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 22(3), 195-204. Cleary, M., Horsfall, J., Hunt, G. E., Escott, P., & Happell, B. (2011). Continuing challenges for the mental health consumer workforce: A role for mental health nurses?. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 20(6), 438-444. Cowan, S., Banks, D., Crawshaw, P., & Clifton, A. (2011). Mental health service user involvement in policy development: Social inclusion or disempowerment? Mental Health Review Journal, 16(4), 177-184. Drapalski, A. L., Medoff, D., Unick, G. J., Velligan, D. I., Dixon, L. B., & Bellack, A. S. (2012). Assessing recovery of people with serious mental illness: Development of a new scale. Psychiatric Services, 63(01), 48-53. Durey, A., Wynaden, D., Barr, L., & Ali, M. (2013). Improving forensic mental health care for Aboriginal Australians: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 23(3), 195-202. Edgley, A., Stickley, T., Wright, N., & Repper, J. (2012). The politics of recovery in mental health: A left libertarian policy analysis. Social Theory & Health, 10(2), 121-140. Everett, A. (2012). Community mental health: Putting policy into practice globally. Psychiatric Services, 63(8), 838. Fuller, J. D., Perkins, D., Parker, S., Holdsworth, L., Kelly, B., Roberts, R., ... Fragar, L. (2011). Building effective service linkages in primary mental health care: A narrative review part 2. BMC Health Services Research, 11(1), 66-74. Gordon, S. E., Ellis, P. M., Siegert, R. J., & Walkey, F. H. (2013). Development of a self-assessed consumer recovery outcome measure: My voice, my life. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 40(3), 199-210. Gushulak, B. D., & Macpherson, D. W. (2011). Health aspects of the pre-departure phase of migration. PLoS Medicine, 8(5), e1001035. Happell, B., Platania-Phung, C., Gray, R., Hardy, S., Lambert, T., Mcallister, M., ... Davies, C. (2011). A role for mental health nursing in the physical health care of consumers with severe mental illness. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 18(8), 706-711. Hinton, R., & Nagel, T. (2012). Evaluation of a culturally adapted training in indigenous mental health and wellbeing for the alcohol and other drug workforce. ISRN Public Health, 2012, 1-6. Kakuma, R., Minas, H., Ginneken, N. V., Poz, M. R., Desiraju, K., Morris, J. E., ... Scheffler, M. R. (2011). Human resources for mental health care: Current situation and strategies for action. The Lancet, 378(9803), 1654-1663. Leamy, M., Bird, V., Boutillier, C. L., Williams, J., & Slade, M. (2011). Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 199(6), 445-452. March, E., Salzberg, M., & Hopwood, M. (2013). Acquired brain injury needs to be acknowledged at the national mental health policy level. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 47(3), 212-216. Mcgeorge, P. (2012). Lessons learned in developing community mental health care in Australasia and the South Pacific. World Psychiatry, 11(2), 129-132. Mcgorry, P., Bates, T., & Birchwood, M. (2013). Designing youth mental health services for the 21st century: examples from Australia, Ireland and the UK. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 202(s54), s30-s35. Mckechnie, V. (2013). Community mental health: Putting policy into practice globally. Journal of Mental Health, 22(6), 575-575. Moxham, L., Mccann, T., Usher, K., Farrell, G., & Crookes, P. (2011). Mental health nursing education in preregistration nursing curricula: A national report. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 20(4), 232-236. Piat, M., Sabetti, J., & Bloom, D. (2010). The Transformation of mental health services to a recovery-orientated system of care: Canadian decision maker perspectives. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 56(2), 168-177. Robertson, A., Paton, J., Prescott, R., Jacklin, A., Cresswell, K., Takian, A…, ... Sheikh, A. (2010). Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: Qualitative analysis of interim results from a prospective national evaluation. BMJ, 341(3), c4564-c4564. Rosen, A., Goldbloom, D., & McGeorge, P. (2010). Mental health commissions: Making the critical difference to the development and reform of mental health services. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 23(6), 593-603. Shanks, V., Williams, J., Leamy, M., Bird, V. J., Boutillier, C. L., & Slade, M. (2013). Measures of personal recovery: A systematic review. Psychiatric Services, 64(10), 974. Sklar, M., Groessl, E. J., O'connell, M., Davidson, L., & Aarons, G. A. (2013). Instruments for measuring mental health recovery: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(8), 1082-1095. Smith-Merry, J., Freeman, R., & Sturdy, S. (2011). Implementing recovery: An analysis of the key technologies in Scotland. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 5(1), 11. Williams, J., Leamy, M., Bird, V., Harding, C., Larsen, J., Boutillier, C., ... Slade, M. (2012). Measures of the recovery orientation of mental health services: Systematic review. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47(11), 1827-1835. Zwi, A. B., Blignault, I., Bunde-Birouste, A. W., Ritchie, J. E., & Silove, D. M. (2011). Decision-makers, donors and data: factors influencing the development of mental health and psychosocial policy in the Solomon Islands. Health Policy and Planning, 26(4), 338-348. Read More