Psychiatric Treatment and Service Delivery

Question: Discuss about the Psychiatric Treatment and Service Delivery. Answer: Deinstitutionalization has had a major effect on the mental health system ranging from the agency, the client and the counselor. People with severe mental health illnesses have experienced challenges in learning to live in their community setting. Community mental health stakeholders are therefore obliged to come into action and address these specific needs. Thus this requires an entire change in service delivery. This paper will examine the challenges and the dynamics which are peculiar to the process of deinstitutionalization then discuss the implementation of the Recovery Framework and analyze the impact it causes to the lives of people with mental disorders. Analysis of the pre- deinstitutionalization period of psychiatric health in Australia Before deinstitutionalization, traditional hospitals which were run by the government provided the first facilities for treatment of people with severe mental illness (SMI). Individuals who suffered from SMI were isolated from the community setting. Public attitude toward persons with mental illness was one cause of this isolation. Other reasons were the lack of resources at the community level and a belief that the mentally ill could only get help while in such isolations. People who suffered from mental ill health were put in iron cages in ships and others in jails together with convicts. This place seemed as entirely exiled world because it was remote and anomalous. The increase in population saw the emergence of many such institutions in Australia (Hambridge, 2014). Overcrowding, isolation from families and disease outbreaks were just a few of the challenges that faced the mentally ill. Comparison shows that institutionalization approach too had its challenges. One of the apparent problems was the lack of hope that the patients would recover from their conditions. Institutions worked as warehouses where the patients stayed for many years with the slight expectation that they would improve after treatment. A move towards deinstitutionalization picked up energy by the availability of labor, rejuvenated clinical optimism and varying social attitudes. However, this move seemed to be driven by political and economic imperatives while responding to inquiries, scandals and the bureaucracy in the government to allocate money to improve mental health facilities. General mental hospitals were established as opposed to traditional hospitals in pre-deinstitutionalization which changed the absorption of the effort with the patients suffering from SMI from the psychiatric health services (Provan, 2015). Before deinstitutionalization, hospitals mismanaged funds meant for treatment of the mentally ill and channeled them to favor academic interests or other subsequent referral programs. Deinstitutionalization and the implementation of Recovery Framework Australia has therefore come up with a considerable personal health sector which is generally funded by the contributions from taxes through Health Insurance Commission. Consequently, this has promoted a significant growth in the provision of psychiatric services with the aim of dealing with mental sicknesses and the rising requirement for psychiatric help (Roberts, 2016).The establishment of Australian Assistance Plan only offered general rather than specialized treatment of mental illnesses. A study conducted showed that there is neglection to offer services to persons and families living with a psychological disease. Therefore, there is need to transfer the resources to places where most of these victims dwell. Establishment of 24-hour mobile mental health services is better compared to the hospital-centered care. This helped in prioritizing the requirements of people with SMI on an involuntary basis if it deemed necessary. The Australian government passed the National Mental Health Policy which is applicable in all states by providing transnational funding from the institutions to the local communities. The National Health Recovery Framework provides a central policy direction to improve and enhance psychiatric healthiness service delivery in Australia. It encompasses a broad collection of healing approaches developed for Australian states and draws on local and foreign research to give an understanding and approach to recovery in practice of mental health and service delivery. It supplements the existing proficiency frameworks and professional standards at state and national level (Rosen, 2014).It also supports attitudinal a cultural variations and calls for an essential check of mixed skills within the labor force of the mental health services. All employees should abide by this framework regardless of their seniority or profession. Additionally, this structure defines the domains of practice and the necessary capabilities which are useful for mental health workforce. It gives guidance on pushing the revitalization approaches to take into account the range of individuals with psychiatric issues. The recovery framework must involve broad consultation and research which is conversant with lived experience. This structure consists of two credentials: 1.The report named; a national recovery structure for psychiatric strength services; Guide for the doctors and the service providers. This document offers regulation to psychological health professionals in their service delivery (Whiteford, 2014) 2.A cohort report of theory and policy which gives setting on the study and policy formulation (Whiteford, 2014). The federal government of Australia has made a significant investment in the improvement of service delivery to address psychosocial needs of the people experiencing mental disorders. This structure has considerably benefited from this investment. Application of this framework contributes to improved mental health as people get support in new ways to lead providing fulfilling lives. In recognizing that consumer or customer experience is a fundamental part of booming healing and recuperation, the set of guidelines of improvement calls for self-determination grilled within legal necessities and responsibility of concern (Tolbert, 2013). Services should, therefore, be aligned to ensure: maximizing of choice, promotion of safety and the dignity of risk. Therefore, this calls for efforts to minimize seclusion, coercion, and restraint. All state legislations which regulate health provision emphasize the advantage of working collectively with the patient irrespective of whether they are receiving their treatment voluntary or involuntary. This builds the consumer experience and confidence about the service delivery. The key to adoption of the recovery-oriented framework in health services is crucial in helping people to get the best combination of survives, supports and treatments which match their interests (Whiteford, 2014). Consumer expectations in mental health care arise because individuals are asked to spend more of their money on services that they find convenient. The mental health reform injects fresh way of conducting the business in telemedicine, mobile clinics, and the social media. In conclusion, there has been a concern that although the reforms in psychiatric health in Australia head in the right direction, the significance of these reforms is fading away. Australia still lags behind regarding government allocation of resources to cater for psychiatric treatment. Deinstitutionalization in Australia is incomplete and half-hearted; that is there is no allocation of real investment in this sector. There is the need for an independent commission to examine reforms, to close the gap in service delivery and to directly forward mental treatment needs to the state government. The expenditure in mental health provision barely exceeds the growth of spending in general health services. References Hambridge, J. A., Rosen, A. (2014). Assertive Community Treatment for the Seriously Mentally Ill in Suburban Sydney: A Programme Description and Evaluation. Australian New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 28(3), 438-445.doi: 10.3109/00048679409075871 Healey, J. (2009). Mental health. Rozelle, N.S.W.: Spinney Press Hoult, J., Rosen, A., Reynolds, I. (2011). Community orientated treatment compared to psychiatric hospital orientated treatment. Social Science Medicine, 18(11), 1005-1010. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(84)90272-7. Newton, L., Rosen, A., Tennant, C., Hobbs, C., Lapsley, H., Tribe, K. (2010). Deinstitutionalization for Long-Term Mental Illness: An Ethnographic Study. Australian New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34(3), 484-490. doi: 10.4067/027940489076861 Provan, K. G., Milward, H. B. (2015). A Preliminary Theory of Inter-organizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1. doi: 10.2307/2393698 Quigley, A. (2011). Mental health. Detroit: Greenhaven Press Roberts, N. (2016). Mental health and mental illness. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; ew York, Humanities Press. Rosen, A. (2014). 100% Mabo: De-Colonising People with Mental Illness and their Families. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 15(3), 128-142. doi:10.1002/j.1467-8438.1994.tb01000.x Tolbert, P. S., Zucker, L. G. (2013). Institutional Sources of Change in the FormalStructure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), 22. doi:10.2307/2392383 Whiteford, H. (2014). The Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council (AHMAC) and the National Mental Health Reforms. Australasian Psychiatry, 2(3), 101-104. doi:10.3109/10398569409082056