Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T08:51:35.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The importance of service level measures for mental health policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2014

Rachel Jenkins
Affiliation:
Department of Health, Wellington House 133-155, Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UG, UK
Gyles Glover
Affiliation:
Department of Health, Wellington House 133-155, Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UG, and PRiSM and Section of Community Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, UK
Get access

Extract

The policy of any organisation is a setting out of the purposes for which it exists - its mission statement. Governments spend money on mental health services and therefore need a coherent mission statement for the use and goals to which that money is put. Moreover, the consequences of mental illness pervade all aspects of a nation's existence. Therefore a mission statement is needed to tackle mental illness and its consequences, not only by developing and using specialist mental health services to best effect, but also by using other relevant organisations as appropriate.

Mental health policy is formulated at all levels from the community mental health team to the national government and thence to the World Health Organisation and the United Nations. Indeed national and international mental health policies have generally been led by local innovative best clinical practice. At local level, the policy of a community mental health team will identify the types of patients to which it seeks to provide a service, the channels through which referrals will be accepted, the type and nature of assessment and decision making about consequent interventions which will be used and a range of quality standards within which it will seek to operate. It may set out a set of desired goals in terms of the improvement in the health status of clients and the degree of consumer satisfaction it seeks to achieve. Some adverse consequences may be set out. For example, it may seek to minimise readmissions to hospital within a specified period of time or the frequency of violent or self-destructive behaviour on behalf of its clients.

Type
Section D: Developing the Public Health Perspective in European Mental Health Services
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Department of Health (1990). The Care Programme Approach for People with a Mental Illness Referred to the Specialist Psychiatric Services. Department of Health: London.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1992). Health of the Nation: a Strategy for Health in England. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1994a). Health of the Nation, Key Area Handbook: Mental Illness, 2nd ed. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1994b). The Introduction of Supervision Registers for Mentally III People from 1 April 1994. Circular HSG(94)5. Department of Health: London.Google Scholar
Department of Health, NHS Executive (1996). 24 Hour Nursed Care for People with Severe and Enduring Mental Illness. Department of Health: Leeds.Google Scholar
Foster, K., Meitzer, M., Gill, B. & Hinds, K. (1996). Adults with a Psychiatric Disorder Living in the Community. Report No. 8. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. (1990) Towards a system of outcome indicators for mental health care. British Journal of Psychiatry 157, 500514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, R. (1994) The health of the nation: recent government policy and legislation. Psychiatric Bulletin 18, 324327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R. & Meitzer, H. (1995). The National survey of psychiatric morbidity in Great Britain. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 30, 14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meltzer, H., Gill, B., Petticrew, M. & Hinds, K. (1995a). OPCS Surveys of Psychiatric Morbidity in Great Britain. The Prevalence of Psychiatric Morbidity among Adults Living in Private Households. Report No. 1. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Meltzer, H., Gill, B., Petticrew, M. & Hinds, K. (1995b). Physical Complaints, Service Use and Treatment of Adults with Psychiatric Disorders. Report No. 2. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Meltzer, H., Gill, B., Petticrew, M. & Hinds, K. (1995c). Economic Activity and Social Functioning of Adults with Psychiatric Disorders. Report No. 3. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Meltzer, H., Gill, B., Petticrew, M. & Hinds, K. (1996a). The Prevalence of Psychiatric Morbidity among Adults Living in Institutions. Report No. 4. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Meltzer, H., Gill, B., Petticrew, M. & Hinds, K. (1996b). Physical Complaints, Service Use and Treatment of Residents with Psychiatric Disorders. Report No. 5. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Meltzer, H., Gill, B., Petticrew, M. & Hinds, K. (1996c). Economic Activity and Social Functioning of Residents with Psychiatric Disorders. Report No. 6. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Meltzer, H., Gill, B., Petticrew, M. & Hinds, K. (1996d). Psychiatric Morbidity among Homeless People. Report No. 7. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Wing, J., Curtis, R. & Beevor, A. (1996). HoNOS, Health of the Nation Outcome Scales. Royal College of Psychiatrists: London.Google Scholar
World Bank (1993). World Development Report 1993, Investing in Health; World Development Indicators. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar