A Current Trend and Development within Mental Health - Case Study Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : A current trend/development within mental health Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Personalization and social inclusion within the mental health services 4 Rationale for personalization and social inclusion within mental health 9 Promotion of personalization in Mental Health Trusts 10 Trust-wide initiatives 13 Promotion, prevention, tackling stigma and discrimination in mental health 14 Recovery and Mental Health 16 Suggestive measures on personalization and mental health challenges 17 Conclusion 19 Bibliography 20 Introduction Mental health is currently at the crossroads with one side indicating that its policy is increasingly changing in relation to the response requirements of the new human rights agenda such as, personalization and social inclusion as well as ant-discrimination. Conversely, mental health remains shaped through the public order and the risk management concerns. In addition, tensions between therapy and its management, wider user choice and the associated service controls with the specialist services are among the various trends in mental health. Based on the general assessment made on the contemporary society, concerns about the public mental health situations and the wellbeing are emerging that are evidently shown through increasing concerns on the more use of ant-depressants( Thornicroft, 2006). Today, mental health service providers are no longer disputing the inclusion of user rights, but making discussions on the relevant mechanisms for ensuring the achievement of meaningful user involvement. Changes in the mental health policy have occurred due to the emergence of the new psychiatry agendas. For instance, the recent calls for the new focus on people as well as their individual or lived experiences are aimed at delivering more effective services. Development of person-centred psychiatry has predated such a call. This study examines the benefits, rationale, implementation of personalization and social inclusion as the new trends or developments within the mental health Trust practices as the case of study. Personalization and social inclusion within the mental health services Personalization and social inclusion is the recent trend within the mental health. The two ambitions meet more challenges from the older culture that was entirely identified with both fear and discrimination that emerged to be the larger contributors of severe mental illness. More progress within the mental health services has been made. Personalization has been considered as a key strand within the current and emerging health as well as social care policies. Similarly, personal health budgets acts as part of the wider drive to personalize the mental health public services. The user movement idea has become a fair state of the mental health, for example, users’ voices and the emerging views have been considered as user involvement into development of the national mental health policies. Based on the mental health trust experience, there is an implication that user involvement into the mental health practices entails a considerable cultural shift (Allen, Gilbert & Onyett 2009). The conventional service-led approach has regularly indicated that majority of the people faced with mental health problems have not received adequate and the right helps within the right time frame and has failed to shape the intended support needs of such individuals. Personalization concerns with giving people extra choice and has power over over their own lives and is more than just offering personal budgets to individuals who are eligible for any council funding. It involves addressing the both the needs and aspirations of the entire communities to ensure that everyone has the right access to the mental health care information, advice as well as advocacy to involve in making informed choices based on the support they may be in need of. The promotion of personalization ensures that people faced with mental health problems have access to services such as leisure and education, housing, transport, health and opportunities related to employment irrespective of their age or disability. These people who rely on mental health services must be supported in order for them to maintain utmost choice and control in their entire mental health fluctuations, wherever possible (Brewis 2007. This requires mechanisms such as the utilization of advanced statements to determine how the personal budgets can be useful at various times and the adoption of a general approach that is flexible by staff. This personalized trend is correspondingly reflected through the aspirations for improved support for the mental health carers. Additionally, such aspirations for enhanced personal services have been influenced by increased awareness of the different experiences that various people have undergone in order to obtain the public mental health services in accordance to their races, gender and cultural ties. Studies indicate that a widespread recognition that the mental health services failed most of the ethnic minority patients particularly the African-Caribbean men (Keating et al.2002). The shift to a user perspective policy has greatly encouraged a focus on the issues associated with mental health as well as social exclusion. For instance, the increased willingness to examine the interconnected nature of individual’s needs and assessing how their poor mental health may be as a result of other problems related to inadequate social support, bad housing or substance abuse (Rankin & Regan 2004). Reports on social exclusion on the general mental health state, has signaled a very strong commitment to undertake the connections between poverty, poor mental health and people’s exclusion from social as well as employment opportunities. Evidences reveal that the impetus to reduce the risks and involve in people management is part of the driving force within the mental health systems. A suggestion has been made that an increase in a number of secured beds results from the risk reduction and people management tendency. A more precise understanding is required to identify the rationale for closing the old psychiatric hospitals with succession in substantial growth of mental health care within more restrictive settings of care provision. Furthermore, development of careful scrutiny of the coercive aspects within the mental health systems has been considered essential in ensuring that the overall goals of people’s rights as well as their social inclusion are not under displacement by the risk management and some exaggerated public fears (McCrone 2003). Nevertheless, consistent achievement of mental health services has not yet been obtained from the extra resources, rendering the service quality variable and in other regions, personalized care has turned out to be more aspiration that the expected reality. Shift is a program that engages in stigma and discrimination which surrounds the mental health concerns in England. The program aims at creating a society in which people who has experience in mental health problems benefit from such rights and the emerging opportunities as the rest of other people. This implies that Shift program works in those areas where individuals articulate their stigma and discrimination experiences utmost. In this case, Shift works in collaboration across the Government Departments, with the public as well as voluntary zones of organizations and the public health concerns that actively promotes the anti discrimination movement occasion to change. Personalization provides the opportunity to more break down of mental health stigma as well as institutionalization through increased self-determination, choice and control both for and with the people faced with the mental health problems and independence. However, specific challenges associated with the implementation of personalization within the mental health, such as, the need for particular risk type management, effective strategies in delivering social care within integrated national hospital service provider organizations and fluctuations in the mental capacity. As a result, personalization considered important in changing how entitlements to the social care resources are applied and determined. In due course, such shifts will also be applied to the various health resources and its general potentiality in transforming the mental health will be achieved only when the resource integration occurs (Williamson 2004). In England, personalization agenda has much to contribute to any field of mental health. This is simply because it helps in challenging the various through which mental health has been perceived. Basically, personalization supports the social model perceptive of mental health that recognizes the significance contributions of the social factors to mental wellbeing (Brewis, 2007). Additionally, it promotes a user-centred concept improvement as a personal journey that enables individuals learns on how to live happier lives, despite the continued availability of the various support needs associated with mental health. Such contributions of personalization define it as the act of meeting specific needs of people in ways that operates best for such individuals (Carr, 2008). Personalization involves prevention, self-directed support and early intervention where the service users are left with the responsibility of controlling the arrangement as well as management of their respective support services. Within this context of mental health service provision, personalization accommodates the promotional and maintenance parts of the mental health. As a result of personalization, individuals make own choices and have control over their lives or wellbeing. However, individuals must not take their control and choices made as isolated lifestyles for the people who receive mental health support. Similarly, the current focus on personal tailored support schemes need not to detract from the necessary investment in enhancing the direct service provisions for the victims who could be in need of them or in addressing the social inequalities as well as alleviating mental pain (Lyons, 2005; Spandler & Vick, 2004). Reforms of mental health in North America has generally been influenced by a number of factors including the deinstitutionalization, growth of either consumers or survivor, family movement, and the increased recognition that identifies people or communities with severe and the chronic mental health problems can enable them achieve some benefits from their participation in the community lives (Carling, 1995). Rationale for personalization and social inclusion within mental health Perceptions on mental health and the nature of its service provision have recently undergone some radical reforms that resulted from the National Service Framework for the mental health. A cross governmental program known as New Horizon has been established that seeks to enhance the full spectrum of individual’s mental wellbeing right away from birth to their older age. This New Horizon vision places much emphasis on the shift from dominated medical model to some more integrated mental health care approaches. In addition, it calls for the genuine transfer and power balance among the mentally disturbed individuals, families as well as their carers. As a result, utmost importance has been placed on the self-determination and communal action on mental health issues (Kneating et al. 2002). Recovery concept as related to individuals who are experiencing the long-term mental health problems or conditions has led to the current shift from the professionally oriented perceptions to the individual mental needs understanding. Therefore, some consensus argue that it is not necessarily about complete recovery where symptoms are not available, but realizing each person’s full potential, aspirations and hopes in case faced with the mental health problems. This implies that development of skills, knowledge and the expertise that are relevant to the focused mental health recovery practices must be taken into consideration. The experienced contributions as well as narratives of the people using the mental health services become very vital in achieving mental health recovery process. Promotion of personalization in Mental Health Trusts For successful implementation of personalization as the recognized approach within the Mental Health Trusts experience has suggested that some stepping stones need to be considered. For example, good leadership becomes important since in order for an individual to make any successful journey, he or she requires other person’s lead. Therefore, leaders are required to understand complexity as well as priorities of the large service provider organizations. Understanding the broader agenda is another stepping stone that should be taken into consideration. Mental health trusts are playing a great role in various fields of social inclusion (Williamson 2004). Conversely, lack of communal priorities makes the Mental Health Trusts as well as local authorities to have different priorities that are not overlapping. In this case, Mental Health Trusts must understand its relationship with some other targets prior to their commitment to personalization. Such three keys to the shared approach within Mental Health Assessments as well the Recovery Star are aimed at producing user centred and results focused assessments. Social inclusion is considered as a priority for several European countries. Most of these European countries recognize both disabilities and the advantages brought as a result of mental ill health. However, some other countries are now applying a recovery model within their mental health care service delivery. Therefore, personalization challenges the conventional perception that only staff and managers determine what is best and what individuals should have. Although professional expertise is essential, the challenge is on how to improve expertise sharing as well as respect both the experience and knowledge of people receiving the services, and their friends who maintain best position aimed at identifying problems and their solutions. Personalization forum group identifies that a medicalised model for the treatment of mental illness, provides valuable support but suggests that it must operate alongside the social impact recognition of mental distress. This group also supports the implementation of personalization as a positive model since it promotes the social model in order to understand the mental ill-health. In addition, social model recognizes the significance of social factors contributions to the mental well-being. This is because personalization encourages a user-centred concept of mental recovery as a personal journey of acquiring experience on how to live in good health, despite the increasing availability of mental health support requirements (Carr S. (2008). If adopted effectively and comprehensively, this model of recovery could change mental health services and prevent the potential of various people who are experiencing mental distress. Personalization forum group argues that some public resources can be channeled very effectively into the promotion of the overall well-being of people with mental health problems as well as the local community. The underlying aim of personalization is to ensure that people with mental health problems have leading choice and control over their intended type of mental health care service which they receive to effectively and efficiently meet all their social care needs as well as choice of provider (Allen, Gilbert & Onyett 2009). The mental health and personalization programs implies that offering people with choice and control within their lives makes them empowered and can be effectively enabled through the long-term recovery in such a way that the most rigid system can not achieve. Personalization is very significant in encouraging creativity because of its flexibility and gives a considerable form for delivering what a person with mental health problems may be really in need of to improve his or her health and the well being. Although this focus is basically on personalizing the mental health care support to individual needs as well as lifestyles, other benefits results from the personalization and social inclusion programs such as enhancing social inclusion, minimizing the hospital admissions and most importantly, indication that such benefits can be delivered for a very low cost as the traditional mental health care package wellbeing (Brewis 2007). There are increasing numbers of individuals who are using the personalized support and the argument is that this personalized mental health practice system in social welfare involves a very diverse workforce as well as a re-evaluation of the significant role of social work. People who are experienced in the use of mental health services argue that they should be in full control of their own lives as well as the support they may be in need of. Therefore, personalization program and introduction of some personal budgets becomes the best opportunity to make such call a reality, and offer a variety of wider ranges in choices than merely concentrating on direct payment. Trust-wide initiatives Central and North-West London (CNWL) is one of the five major Mental Health Trusts who are currently working in collaboration with the Inclusion Institute based at the Central Lancashire University. This institute promotes the duties of Cross-government Personalization and National Social Inclusion Initiatives as the centre for excellent evidence, innovation, learning as well as making practices on inclusion within the contexts of sustainable, engaged communities and personalization. In addition, the adult Day support trusts are closely working with Inclusion Institute in order to deliver outcomes and the associated service developments in areas such as enhancing peer support or the user run services, increasing direct payments and personal budgets involvement and a shift in mental health practice from group management to a 1:1 work that accommodates both personalization and the social inclusion agendas. Trust introduction to the personalization and self-directed support information sheet offers a practical summary of the various elements of the act personalization and their significance on mental health services (Vick & Spandler 2006).  Studies indicate that Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) is a rough channel to personalization and another supportive introduction. National Service Framework for the Mental Health modernization of the health services, is continuously promoting the integration of both health and the social care services within the mental health trusts in order to provide the ‘joined up’ services, with much emphasis on an inter-professional collaboration as well as the active participation of mental health carers and the people who make use of such services. As a result, mental health teams or specialist are increasingly developed to intercede quickly to avert crisis and relapse, reduce the hospital admissions, and to encourage mental health recovery. Self-assured outreach teams, for instance, provide more support, treatment as well as interventions for people faced with the long-term mental health difficulties, the associated complex needs and who consider it very difficult to engage directly with mental health care services (NSIP (National Social Inclusion Programme) 2009).   Promotion, prevention, tackling stigma and discrimination in mental health The promotion and prevention of mental health as well as the associated illness are part of the national policy in most of the European countries. Such countries involve in national anti-discrimination or the anti-stigma programmes. Self-management initiatives that involve the service user to play the expert role challenges the existing perceptions and leads to enhanced people reputation through psychiatric diagnosis, making them capable citizens (Thornicroft, 2006). This implies that self-management involves the transfer of people’s focus from treating the mental illness to helping them to cope with it for long-term. In this context of mental ill health, the main focus does not necessarily have to be based on diagnosis, but instead on how to effectively respond to the emerging obstacles that individual’s face, irrespective of whether they are viewed through spiritual, neurological, psychological, social or biochemical lens. Self-management provides people with the opportunity to rebuild their own lives in the context of living with the faced mental ill health. Social relationships as well as social support are significantly good for improved mental of all people and the individuals who may be recovering from the mental illness. In addition, re-connection with their society promotes recovery and reduces the likelihoods of relapse. In evaluating the beyond evidence-based practice in mental health, nine ideal features, such as well defined, effective, indicating minimum side effects, reflecting the client goals, reasonable costs, adaptive to various communities as well as client groups, easily implemented, yielding some positive and long-term outcomes have been considered essential in the management of mental health illness. Additionally, evidenced-based practices are usually implemented within the diverse ethnic groups without necessarily making some modifications and considering people’s cultures (Kneating et al. 2002). Increasing the choice and control among the individuals who are eligible for mental social care has become a national priority. Personal budgets as well as direct payments are the most important tools that enhance people’s choice making and having control over the intended mental health care supports. People who make use of the mental health care services and carers play a very important role in the promotion and development of personalization knowledge and its research base. The gains that such people who rely on mental health services have acquired based on, for example, highlighting the value of the direct payments as well as individual budgets is evidently discussed (Perkins et al.2004). Recovery and Mental Health Recovery in mental health indicates the struggle people with mental illness undergo in order to live meaningful as well as satisfying lives. Today, the principles associated with recovery are providing conceptual structure to underpin the various developments within the mental health services. This includes direct payments for individuals faced with mental health problems, users as well as survivors of mental health. The implication of using the direct payment is to enable people faced with mental health problems to undertake maximum control over their treatment and the support offered through the use of budgets acquire appropriate mental health care services (Rankin & Regan 2004). As a result, health and the social care services are required to come together for effective allocation of resources within some integrated systems that appear to be less confusing for individuals with mental health difficulties. Therefore, with the implementation of personalization in mental health, the service providers are in a position to provide more flexible support by allowing people mental issues to have more control of their supporters, with the ability to decide when and how to receive their support. The recovery concept as it is applied to individuals who experience enduring mental health conditions has not yet been clearly defined. As a result, a shift from the professionally oriented definitions to individual understanding has been implemented. However, there is some arguments that the underlying idea is not necessarily on complete recovery where symptoms are absent, but realizing each person’s full potential, aspirations as well as hopes within the faced experiences in mental health problems. Both recovery and personalization are commonly related in their principles, including the shift of power to the people who use the mental health services, minimizing independence and service dependency, valuing individual’s expertise through the lived experience as well as encouraging active citizenship and the acts of social inclusion. Self-directed support must go an extra step and provide greater power to the mental health service users in order for them to decide on how the social care funding is to be spent through direct payments and the progressively more, personal or some individual budgets (Kneating et al. 2002). Suggestive measures on personalization and mental health challenges Although common principles are available for personalization implementation for individuals in need of the social care services, particular challenges within the mental health are also increasing. Therefore, the people who rely on mental health services ought to be supported in order for them to maintain utmost choice and control during fluctuations in their faced mental health conditions. This can be achieved through the application of appropriate mechanism, for instance, the use of advanced statements on how to utilize personal budgets on different occasions and to adopt a more flexible as well as general approach by the health care service providers. In cases where the management of integrated national health systems trusts is practiced, it is apparently considered that mental health can fail to feature out as strongly as in the local authority mental health implementation of the personalized social care services or supports (Brewis 2007). This implies that more efforts may be required so as to ensure that the mental health care providers are involved in emerging local authority’s training as well as workforce development programs on personalization and the integration of working systems. Mental health service practitioners are required to support the positive risk taking and ensure that equal access to the social care resources individuals faced with mental health problems. Direct payment has emerged to be the only way through which personal budget can be received. Individuals who provide mental health care services and those receiving such health care support services must take note that personal budgets ought to be focused mainly on funding the ongoing support as well as care needs. They should understand that personal budgets can as well be offered as either direct payment or an account that is managed by a third party. Finally, personal budgets must be implemented within the self-directed support framework. As a result, self-directed assessment, support planning and up-front allocations have to be involved as a way of ensuring maximum choice and control over mental health care services. The carers should take into consideration that self-directed support concerns with the ability to find out on what can be important to individuals who are in need of social care services, enabling them to plan on how the available funds can be used to achieve the intended objectives (Vick &Spandler 2006). Conclusion Changes in the mental health policy have occurred due to the emergence of the new psychiatry agendas, for instance, the shift to a user perspective policy has greatly encouraged a focus on the issues associated with mental health as well as social exclusion. The recent calls for the new focus on people as well as their individual or lived experiences are aimed at delivering more effective services. Personalization as well as social inclusion is the recent trend within the mental health. It is a key strand within the current and emerging health as well as social care policies. In addition, personalization encourages a user-centred concept of mental recovery as a personal journey of acquiring experience on how to live in good health, despite the increasing availability of mental health support requirements. Therefore, the main aim of personalization is to ensure that people with mental health problems have leading choice and control over their intended type of mental health care service which they receive to effectively and efficiently meet all their social care needs as well as choice of provider. Perceptions on mental health and the nature of its service provision have recently undergone some radical reforms that resulted from the National Service Framework for the mental health. The mental health and personalization programs implies that offering people with choice and control within their lives makes them empowered and can be effectively enabled through the long-term recovery in such a way that the most rigid system can not achieve. Bibliography Allen, R, Gilbert, P, & Onyett, S. (2009), Report 27: Leadership for personalization and social inclusion in mental health, London: SCIE. Brewis, R. (2007), A choice and a voice, Retrieved January 28, 2011 from, Carr S. (2008), Personalization: a rough guide, SCIE, Retrieved January 28, 2011 from, Kneating et al. (2002), Breaking the circles of fear, The Sainsbury centre for mental health. SCIE. Lyons, J. (2005), A systems approach to direct payments: a response to “Friend or foe?” Towards a critical assessment of direct payments, Critical Social Policy, 25 (2), 240–52. McCrone P et al. (2003), Mental health service activity in London, The King’s fund. NSIP (National Social Inclusion Programme), (2009), Vision and progress, London, NSIP. Rankin, J. & Regan, S., (2004), Meeting Complex Needs: ippr/ Turning Point. Perkins, R et al. (2004), Reality out of the Rhetoric: User Involvement in a Mental Health Trust, Mental Health Review, 9(1). Thornicroft, G. (2006), Shunned: Discrimination against people with mental health problems, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vick, N. and Spandler, H. (2006), Opportunities for independent living using direct payments in mental health, Health and Social Care in the Community, 14(2): 107–15. Williamson. (2004), User Involvement – a Contemporary Overview, Mental Health Review, 9(1). Read More