Search results

This study aims to explore the empirical correlation between patient flow issues, quality of green health services and patient satisfaction in specialist medical department factors from patients’ perspectives as service consumers.

This research is a type of nonintervention empirical research that uses an open survey to explore the views and experiences of users of specialist medical department services. The targeted population is hospital patients included in the top five national PERSI (Indonesian Hospital Association) Award 2022 Green Hospital Category, with a total number of respondents of 572 people. This study uses the partial least square-structural equation modeling analysis method with the SmartPLS application.

Patient flow problems generally affect the quality of eco-friendly health services, except for the waiting time problem, which affects service quality. It should be understood as a top priority for patients to receive services from medical specialists without risking time as a core service aspect from the patient’s perspective. In addition, all variables in eco-friendly hospital services affect patient satisfaction, except in the case of visits to specialist medical departments, which do not affect medical support services and hospital practices that are responsive to the delivery of care services resulting from medical support services that are inseparable in integrated services as well as health care following medical ethics.

This study has a novelty in understanding the implications of green practice in determining patient satisfaction in medical specialist department as the epicenter of hospital services and the main object of assessment for the quality of hospital services.

There are high rates of emotional, behavioural and psychiatric problems (Cooper et al, 2007) in the learning disability population. This paper describes the Mental Health in Learning Disabilities (MHiLD) service for adults with learning disabilities in four South London boroughs. This service has been in operation in two South East London boroughs from 1982, and was extended to a third in 1999 and a fourth in 2006.

Many parts of the world are developing specialist mental health services for people with a learning disability. Government policy in England appears to favour a move in the opposite direction. The general aims of mental health services for people with a learning disability are indeed similar to those of the rest of the population, but distinctive clinical skills are required to assess, treat and support effectively people with a learning disability who have mental health and/or behavioural problems. There is therefore a need for specialist services to meet the needs of this population, which should include acute admission facilities, outreach services in the community and long‐term support.

Changes have occurred in the pattern of services for people with learning disabilities and mental illness and/or challenging behaviour over recent years, with the development of a variety of service models across the UK. In SE London, residential services are based predominantly on a supported housing model and the strong philosophical premise that people should not be excluded from a community residential service because they have complex physical, behavioural or mental health needs. Local services, therefore, are supporting individuals with a wide range of need. This paper describes the development of specialist mental health and challenging needs services in support of this model. The issues raised are outlined, together with a list for action and priorities to overcome the difficulties encountered, including the maintenance of an effective infrastructure.

This paper aims to review the need for and development of specialist deaf secure mental health services.

The paper is a review article; it begins by giving a brief overview of deafness and the relationship between deafness, mental health problems and offending. Following this, relevant literature and Department of Health (DoH) guidance is summarised and a description of the current UK services is given.

In 2001, Young et al. highlighted the needs of deaf mentally disordered offenders and the requirement for specialist forensic mental health services for this group. Since then several DoH guidance documents have been published that, amongst other things, highlighted the need to develop deaf forensic mental health services. There have now been substantial service developments in this area but substantial gaps remain – most notably, a lack of specialist mental health provision for deaf prisoners.

The paper offers insights into the development and future of deaf forensic mental health services.

Contemporary categorizations of western-style welfare states distinguish a particular pattern of organizing social security mainly found in Scandinavian countries, and sometimes labeled as a “social democratic welfare regime.” This is characterized by general access of the population to a social security system organized and administered by public authorities. This categorization is widely acknowledged, but the Scandinavian “social democratic” model is rarely ever analyzed in detail.

While most health services are provided by public actors, it is often overlooked that health services in Scandinavian countries in certain fields are delivered to a substantial part by private actors. In Norwegian rehabilitation specialist health care, these private actors stand for more than 30% of all service delivery.

Based on a content analysis of publications of the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services we look into the relation between public and private actors in rehabilitation and relate our findings to classifications of Scandinavian welfare states into an institutional, social democratic model.

There has been much debate about the most appropriate site for in‐patient psychiatric care for people with learning disabilities. The evidence base for service delivery for this group is very scant. Even less is known about the experiences of service users and their carers, as their voices have been largely absent from this debate among service providers and policy makers. This article summarises results from a study into the experiences of adults with learning disabilities who were admitted for in‐patient psychiatric care. Their carers' views were also investigated. Differences between generic and specialist provision are considered, and implications for service delivery are discussed. Generic services in particular would appear in need of considerable improvements if they are to meet the needs of people with learning disabilities in line with current policy guidelines. Recommendations for improvement include greater sensitivity of staff to the needs of this group, increased provision of accessible information about treatment options and medication, and more careful consideration of the need to involve regular carers during the admission.

The aim of this article is to critically review the Autism Strategy and to discuss its implications.

This is a summary and critical review of the Autism Strategy and its implementation. This includes discussion of the political context, reactions to the strategy by stakeholders, economic considerations, equity, integration across health and social care and the role of diagnostic services and specialist interventions.

The Autism Strategy Fulfilling and Rewarding Lives was published in 2010. It aimed to increase awareness of autism, establish clear pathways for diagnosis and needs assessment, promote independent living and access to work, and help the development of local services. It focuses on intended outcomes, is not prescriptive about how those aims are achieved, and relies on existing legislation such as the Disability Discrimination Act. The emphasis on accessing mainstream services may limit the development of appropriate specialist services, especially in the current economic climate. Specialist interventions that may follow diagnosis are not prioritised, even though the economic case for them has been well made by the Audit Commission. Although the Department of Health has produced “outcomes and ambitions” to measure implementation of the Strategy, local authorities are not required to measure themselves against these targets or publish their results. However, organisations such as the National Autistic Society have already developed training materials to help with implementation, and the NICE guidelines for adults with autism due in 2012 may help the development of better services.

This article provides new insights into the implications of the strategy for service users, service managers and healthcare professionals. Although the strategy applies to England only, the principles are of interest to stakeholders in other countries.

Interprofessional collaboration is necessary when supporting mentally ill offenders but little is understood of these interactions. The purpose of this paper is to explore prison officers’ perceptions of current and desirable levels of interprofessional collaboration (relational coordination (RC)) to understand how collaboration between these systems can be improved.

Gittell’s RC scale was administered to prison officers within the Norwegian prison system (n=160) using an adaptation of the instrument in which actual and desired levels of RC are evaluated. This differentiates between prison officers’ expectations of optimum levels of collaboration with other professional groups, dependent on the role function and codependence, vs actual levels of collaboration.

Prison officers reported different RC levels across professional groups, the lowest being with specialist mental health staff and prison doctors and highest with nurses, social workers and other prison officers. Significant differences between desired and actual RC levels suggest expertise of primary care staff is insufficient, as prison officers request much greater contact with mental health specialists when dealing with the mentally ill offender.

The paper contributes to limited literature on collaborative practice between prison and health care professionals. It questions the advisability of enforcing care pathways that promote the lowest level of effective care in the prison system and suggest ways in which mental health specialists might be better integrated into the prison system. It contributes to the continued debate on how mental health services should be integrated into the prison system, suggesting that the current import model used in Norway and other countries, may not be conducive to generating the close professional relationships required between mental health and prison staff.