Search results

It is nearly eight years since the National Service Framework for Mental Health was published, setting ambitious 10‐year targets. This article draws on findings presented in a recent Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health report on progress to date. It concludes that although the framework confirmed the status of mental health as a health priority for the government, a likely shortfall in funding means that goals will not be met in full. The authors stress that this is not a criticism of policy; rather it reflects the ambitious nature of the government's mental health agenda.

The National Service Framework for Mental Health was published in late 1999, setting ambitious 10‐year targets. This article draws on findings presented in a recent Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health report on progress to date. It concludes that although the framework confirmed the status of mental health as a health priority for the government, a likely shortfall in funding means that goals will not be met in full. The authors stress that this is not a criticism of policy; rather it reflects the ambitious nature of the government's mental health agenda.

There is an established international evidence base on supported employment for people with severe and enduring mental health problems, and now a growing evidence base on how to successfully implement this into practice. The process involves substantial organisational development and change, and therefore effective leadership is critical. This article outlines some of the challenges to implementing supported employment services and explores what recent leadership theory could contribute to this process, as the Sainsbury Centre embarks on its Centres of Excellence Programme in England and seeks to build a wider learning community from our partnerships formed through the International Initiative for Mental Health Leadership (IIMHL).

Mental health conditions are common in the working population. Every organisation should have a comprehensive strategy that not only promotes mental health and provides effective return to work support but that proactively responds to mental ill health in the workplace at an early stage. This will bring about better health for people and save costs for organisations.This article outlines the scale of the issue and draws on leadership research to explore how this could be used in the workplace to build a culture able to respond to and manage mental health effectively at work. It outlines how the Centre for Mental Health (formerly the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health) has addressed some of these issues by working with the Australian charity, beyondblue: the national depression initiative. The Centre has made beyondblue's highly successful National Workplace Programme available in the UK in order to build management competencies so that managers have the skills, knowledge and confidence to act.

The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health has recently published a briefing paper on employment support for people from black and minority ethnic (BME) communities who have mental health problems. The author of the paper, Patience Seebohm, summarises some key issues from the paper here.

Forensic mental health services play an important role in providing treatment and accommodation for people diverted from prison or the courts who require secure and specialist mental health treatment. There are more than 3,500 people in medium and high‐secure hospitals who have been directed there by the courts or prison system, and nearly 1,000 new admissions are received each year. Yet, the facts and figures relating to these services are patchy and not widely published. This paper builds on an earlier statistical briefing produced by the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health in 2007, and seeks to provide an up‐to‐date and improved understanding of this area of service provision by presenting the most recent data and figures.

This paper gives an overview of the ‘non‐professionally affiliated’ (NPA) workforce in mental health in relation to their education, training and development. Some comparison is made with the current situation for the key professions in mental health. We argue that the NPA workforce is an increasingly significant and important part of the workforce and that attention needs to be paid to the construction of an overall development and qualification pathway for these workers, who embody many of the strengths of generic mental health work and have been found to be of great value to service users and their families.

This paper will review the estimated prevalence of ‘dual diagnosis’ among young offenders, briefly review the gaps in service and look at what research tells us about what works best with young people. The group this paper focuses on in the main are those 18 years of age and under and who have come into contact with the criminal justice system and have dual diagnosis. At times, however, the authors draw from a wider literature because working with young dual‐diagnosed offenders is a relatively new field.

The UK Government has been planning changes to mental health legislation for at least eight years. On 23 March 2006, the Department of Health announced that many of these plans would proceed ‐ although through amendments to the 1983 Mental Health Act rather than a substantive Bill. These proposed reforms are significant but controversial. This paper sets out some of the reasons for welcoming the proposed changes. It is argued that the proposals to replace the responsible medical officer with a clinical supervisor are in keeping with best quality mental health care, and allow for proper multidisciplinary practice. Such an approach explicitly permits proper use of the skills and competencies of the workforce ‐ including psychologists. A second controversial aspect of the proposed reforms ‐ supervised community treatment orders, permitting compulsory care outside of hospitals ‐ represent not a violation of human rights, but a specific defence of ‘Article 8’ rights to protection of family and personal life. Finally, it is argued that the proposed amendments are important because mental health legislation dominates mental health care and the present 1983 Mental Health Act inappropriately consolidates the status of the medical model and the role of the responsible medical officer (and hence psychiatry). It is argued that the proposed changes are imperfect; in particular they lack inclusion of an ‘impaired judgement’ criterion, but it is suggested that necessary role and service redesign needs such amendments to allow the new ways of working programme to ‘bite’.