The publication of the debate on separate psychiatric services for ethnic minorities (Reference Bhui and SashidharanBhui/Sashidharan, 2003) highlights the unmet needs of some of these people. Their progress on the pathway to mental health care has suffered through poor recognition of mental illness because of issues related to language, idioms of distress and other cultural factors. Bhui rightly points out that the majority of ethnic minority services are run by the voluntary sector and are outside the National Health Service (NHS). Their limitations include: limited involvement of NHS psychiatrists; targeting of only certain ethnic groups; restriction to small geographical areas; and short-term funding. The statutory sector has mainly catered only for those groups with severe mental disorders, sometimes involving law and order issues but not addressing the needs of the majority who have less severe mental disorders. This may mean that depressive illness, which goes undetected and untreated, leads to considerable suffering.

In planning culturally competent services, the notion of a specific service for each cultural group is unrealistic. In areas where 25% of the population are ethnic minority groups speaking up to a hundred languages, creating services for individual ethnic groups seems unattainable. There is another problem in that specific services for ethnic minority groups raise fears of ‘ghettoisation’ and further marginalisation of those already marginalised.

With Professor Sashidharan's dislike for words such as ‘separate’, ‘different’ and ‘them’, one gets the impression that he wants a ‘melting pot’ approach to address inequalities in service provision. Whatever perspective we may have, ethnic groups have their own identity and specific needs; thus, a ‘mosaic’-like approach, with better awareness of individual needs in a broader perspective is required.

Caution is needed regarding reference to cultural matters. Sometimes, everything is attributed to ethnicity or culture, while at other times the existence of cultural impact is completely denied. Concentrating on cultural differences may lead to important diagnostic signs being missed. Cultural sensitivity is not a fixation on culture and it should not be a synonym for unexplained variance.

On the basis of our own experiences in Manchester and Toronto, we propose a third approach – founded on Professor Kirmayer's ‘cultural consultation model’ (Reference Kirmayer, Grolean and GuzderKirmayer et al, 2003) – as an interim option. This in some respects lies midway between the opposite poles of the debate. This model proposes the operation of a specialised multi-disciplinary team that brings together clinical experience with cultural knowledge and linguistic skills essential to working with patients from diverse cultural backgrounds. A team built on the cultural consultation model aims to give advice to other clinicians rather than take on patients for continuing care. The latter will be reserved for cases where there are difficulties in understanding, diagnosing and treating patients where cultural factors may be important. The assessment will usually involve two or three interviews with the patient and his or her family, which should result in a clear cultural formulation, diagnosis and treatment plan. The members of this team will be a resource for clinicians in primary care, social services, mental health and other related disciplines. They will also be involved in the training of interpreters, culture link workers and members of the mainstream and existing community services.

Until ‘they’ become ‘us’ we have to find a way forward that is both financially and logistically viable and that allows mainstream services to provide a culturally sensitive approach to all groups rather than a service to a minority of those in need.