Editorial
| Published date | 03 November 2009 |
| Pages | 2-3 |
| Date | 03 November 2009 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13619322200900015 |
| Author | Chiara Samele |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
Mental Health Review Journal Volume 14 Issue 3 September 2009 © Pier Professional Ltd
2
2
Editorial
As the National Service Framework for Mental
Health (NSFMH) draws to a close, a new vision is
in the making. The NSFMH marked a great many
changes over the past decade, not least with the
formal introduction of specialist community
mental health services such as early intervention,
crisis resolution and assertive outreach
(Department of Health, 1999). Three key reports
feature what is to come next.
Launched in July this year, the New Horizons:
Towards a shared vision for mental health
consultation report aims to build on the NSFMH
and offers a promising collection of five core
priorities – personalised services, equality, stigma
and understanding, high-quality care for all and
no health without mental health (Department of
Health, 2009). Underpinning these priorities is a
commitment to maintaining mental well-being
and tackling the causes of mental illness, hence
the emphasis on public mental health, mental
health promotion and prevention. This is good
news so far.
In anticipation of New Horizons, The Future
Vision Coalition (2008) initiated a debate about
the best direction for mental health policy.
Comprising seven leading national mental
health organisations the coalition calls for a
shift away from health/illness approaches to
improving quality of life. This brings into play
the principles of recovery and an emphasis on
the whole person, a positive personal identity,
better social networks and many other things –
approaches that will become integral to mental
health services in times to come.
The health of offenders is now on the New
Horizons policy map, after a long period of neglect
in these quarters. Lord Keith Bradley’s recent
report, to address the exceedingly high levels of
mental health problems and other complex needs
in people involved in the criminal justice system,
makes some important recommendations to
reform existing practice. Commissioned by Jack
Straw (Secretary of State for Justice), the Bradley
Report spells out precisely 82 recommendations
for policy (Bradley, 2009). The key one involves
the creation of a national network of criminal
justice mental health teams, acting as ‘brokers’ to
divert offenders into mental health services where
necessary. These teams would work across the
entire offender pathway, anywhere from pre-arrest
to release from prison. Never has the need for
integrated services been more apparent – where
general and specialist mental health services
will need to work more closely with criminal
justice agencies. The New Horizons consultation
report acknowledges this and the government is
considering which of Bradley’s recommendations
to take on board. So far, a few have been
accepted, such as the feasibility of transferring
commissioning and budgetary arrangements for
healthcare services in police custody suites to the
NHS (Sainsbury Centre, 2009). Implementation
of The Bradley Report at the coalface will be
something to look out for, although this will rely
heavily on managers and practitioners to fulfil
within a climate of financial famine.
Future issues of the journal will include papers
that address these key priorities for mental
health services and what they mean for research,
policy and practice.
This issue begins that process with Schneider
and colleag ues’ explor atory analys is looking at
the associa tion betwee n individual social capital
(the extent of neig hbourliness, social net works,
social supp ort etc) and psychos is. Using data
from a c ase-control study on the Aetiolo gy of
Schizophrenia and Other Psychoses (AESOP), the
authors fou nd that those withou t psychosis had
more active social capital (or better engagement
in social activities) compared to people with
psychosis. There are caveats to this fin ding
relating to their m easurement o f social capital
using the AESOP data. But th e authors raise
some intere sting quest ions about whether
social capi tal contrib utes to m ental illne ss or a
consequence of it. They then speculate o n the
sorts of social int erventions/serv ices that might
make a d ifference.
Better engagement in social activities is also
the subject of Felton and colleagues’ paper on
experiences of social inclusion. The authors
evaluate a practice development initiative
to examine community involvement from
the perspective of those using and working
in rehabilitation mental health services. To
maximise service users’ perspectives, the
authors do something different – they utilise
photography to capture information on social
inclusion. Interpreting the 200 photographs
would have been challenging, but the findings
To continue reading
Request your trial