Editorial
| Date | 01 September 1996 |
| Pages | 4-4 |
| Published date | 01 September 1996 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13619322199600023 |
| Author | Helen Smith |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
Editorial
Arecent article in the Health Service Journal
noted that: ‘There is currently a paradox of
power in primary care. Some GPs feel
enthused by the recent reforms because they have
never had such a prominent role in local health
policy.Others feel demoralised and disheartened’.1
Many community mental health teams and their
primary care colleagues have taken full advantage of
the spotlight on primary care and have forged new
and innovative ways of meeting the needs of mental
health service users — some of these initiatives are
described in this issue. However some CMHTs may
express surprise at the statement, as they them-
selves feel disheartened by the contrast between
their local GPs’ requirement that the team deals
with people with less severe mental health problems
and their health authority’spolicy to target people
most in need.
As Anne Rogers notes in this issue, the
boundaries between primary and secondary care are
shifting and new ways of working have to be sought.
However,she counsels against the rush to transplant
aspecialist model into primary care and explores
the advantages to service users of a generalist view
of the world. The article by Steve Onyett and
colleagues analyses the current ‘state of play’ of
primary/secondary care and discusses how specialist
services can work more effectively with local practices.
Colin Gell looks at how the success of users in
influencing secondary services can now be applied
in primarycaresettings. Ken Lawton describes how
one innovative practice has sought to improve mental
health care to its patients and Alan Cohen comments
on this case study, reinforcing the need for shared
responsibility between primary and secondary
services for the care of long-term service users.
The dilemma of how to treat and support people
whose mental health problems are not long term, but
still significantly disruptive to their lives, is addressed
by Laurie Davidson. He describes the development
of an extensive counselling service, managed through
the Community T
rust, yet operating in primary care.
Finally, Ruth Ward and Jan Scott explore how one
practice and its CMHT responded to the mental
health needs of local users. The interesting and
sometimes unexpected findings of their study
provoked debate and change within the practice,
in ways which most CMHTs would wholeheartedly
support.
Many of these articles arewritten from a primary
careperspective. It is hoped that they will stimulate
discussion between secondary and primary care
services and ideas for change. Users will get the best
service from CMHTsand GP practices who arein
mutually empowering relationships.
There is a change to the next issue of the Review
(due out in December). The theme will be user
involvement and not children and adolescents as
some of you may have noted in the first issue. The
change is in order to report on a national conference
on ten years of user involvement in mental health
services, which happened earlier this year. The
topic of children and adolescents will be returned
to at a later date. Ingrid Barker, CMHSD associate
consultant, will be guest editor for this
particular issue.
References
1Exworth, M. (1996) Power Points. Health Services
Journal,23 May, 24–25.
EDITORIAL
Helen Smith
EDITOR
4 The Mental Health Review 1:3 ©Pavilion Publishing (Brighton) 1996
To continue reading
Request your trial