Mental Health Service Delivery and Philosophy

Mental Health Service Delivery and Philosophy


Question:

Discuss about the Mental Health Service Delivery and Philosophy.

Answer:

Introduction

Mental health service delivery and philosophies have been changing. The major change in the delivery of mental health serviced however occurred during after the introduction of the de-institutionalization of mental health services. Before de-institutionalization, mental health services were mainly focused on the locking-up and seclusion of the mentally-ill patients from the rest of the community. However, all these changed after de-institutionalization and implementation of the National Recovery-Oriented Mental Health Framework. The framework helped in transforming the delivery of mental health services by introducing new strategies in provision of patient-centered, holistic, individualized mental services focused on the recovery, not isolation of the patients. This paper presents a candid analysis of the effectiveness of the implementation of de-institutionalization and National Recovery-Oriented Mental Health Framework in transforming mental health service delivery and philosophy in Australia.  
Mental Health Service Delivery and Philosophy in the Pre and Post-De-Institutionalization Era
The principles, approaches and philosophies applied in the mental health service delivery seriously changed after the de-institutionalization of healthcare services. De-institutionalization is a change that took place in the delivery of mental health services (Slade, et al., 2014). It involved the change from long-term locking of the people with mental illness in the mental service institutions to the community-based mental health facilities. Meaning, the patients with mental illness would no longer be locked up in the metal institutions, but be accepted and integrated back into the community. During the pre-de-institutionalization era, the patients with mental illness were isolated from the rest of the community. The community had developed a stigma that the people with mental were troublesome misfits who should not be accepted in the society (Kavanagh, et al., 2013). All the negative labels adopted for the people with mental illness made it difficult for them to be accepted as part of the society.  
The fact that the people with mental illnesses were not accepted in the society implies that they had to be locked up in the mental institutions for a very long time. Here, they were not supposed to be treated to recover, but only had to be separated from the rest of the community in which they would cause a lot of trouble (Boyd, Adler, Otilingam & Peters, 2014). The mental healthcare providers did not care much about the mentally-ill patients because no one was concerned about their recovery. The prolonged isolation of the people with mental illness was not a good practice because it did not benefit them in any way. It made them live in seclusion and become depressed, hopeless, helpless, and disillusioned (Kidd, Kenny & McKinstry, 2014). This justifies why the rate of mental illness remained high because the mental institutions were always congested by patients.

De-institutionalization made a lot of changes in the provision and philosophy of mental health services in Australia. First and foremost, it ended the long-term and traditional practice of locking up the people with mental illnesses in the mental institutions across the country. Instead, there was a change because the mentally-ill patients were now integrated back into the community (Corrigan, Benjami,n & Deborah, 2014). Here, the family members and the community in general would take part in helping the patient to integrate back into the community and be accepted as one of their own (Rogers & Pilgrim, 2014). This change resolved the persistent problem of congestion of the mental institutions in which the people with mental illnesses were being locked-up.  
The introduction of de-institutionalization of mental health services in Australia seriously improved the quality of mental health services in the country. Initially, the main focus of mental health services was exclusion and locking-up of the mentally-ill persons. However, all these came to an end after de-institutionalization because the treatment of the patients would shift towards the improvement of the health conditions. Deliberate efforts were made to empower the patients to recover from their troubling mental conditions (Whiteford, et al., 2014). This is why the mentally-ill patients were released back to the community so as to give the family and community members opportunity to participate in the management of their conditions (Hutchinson, et al., 2014).
Implementation and Contributions of Recovery Framework in the Delivery of Mental Health Services in Australia
There are two main developments that transformed the philosophy and provision of mental health services across Australia: de-institutionalization and adoption of the National Recovery-Oriented Mental Health Framework. The National Recovery-Oriented Mental Health Framework is a policy framework that was drafted, adopted, and enforced by the government of Australia to enhance the quality of mental health services as per the expectation.
The implementation of the framework helped in transforming the provision of mental health services. It introduced new approaches and principles of mental health services. For instance, the framework has helped in introducing the use of patient-centeredness approach in the treatment of the people with mental illness (Griffiths, Mond, Murray & Touyz, 2015). Besides, the framework introduced the use of holistic approach in addressing the physical, physiological, spiritual, and psychological needs of the patients with mental illnesses. Lastly, the framework introduced the use of self-care approaches in the provision of mental health services in Australia (Donato & Segal, 2013). These new strategies have been playing a significant role in improving the quality of mental health services in the country.          
The application of this framework has helped in ensuring that the people with mental illness are not stigmatized, but treated with the due respect that they deserve as equally important people in the society (Canvin, Rugkåsa, Sinclair & Burns, 2014). The framework has been effectively implemented by adopting a patient-centeredness, individualized, holistic, safe, multi-disciplinary, and culturally-adaptable approaches in the provision of mental health services.   

Conclusion

The philosophy and provision of mental health services has been changing in Australia. The delivery of the introduction of de-institutionalization and National Recovery-Oriented Mental Health Framework has reformed mental health service delivery by introducing new approaches aimed at treating the patients with dignity, and providing them with a safe, patient-centered, individualized, self-managed, and holistic recovery-oriented interventions.

References

Boyd, J. E., Adler, E., Otilingam, P. & Peters, T. (2014). Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness (ISMI) scale: a multinational review. Comprehensive psychiatry, 55(1), 221-231.
Canvin, K., Rugkåsa, J., Sinclair, J. & Burns, T. (2014). Patient, psychiatrist and family carer experiences of community treatment orders: qualitative study. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 49(12), pp.1873-1882.
Corrigan, P., Benjami,n, G. & Deborah A. (2014). The impact of mental illness stigma on seeking and participating in mental health care. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 15.2: 37-70.
Donato, R. & Segal, L. (2013). Does Australia have the appropriate health reform agenda to close the gap in Indigenous health?. Australian Health Review, 37(2), pp.232-238.
Griffiths, S., Mond, J. M., Murray, S. B., & Touyz, S. (2015). The prevalence and adverse associations of stigmatization in people with eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48(6), 767-774.
Hutchinson, K. M., et al., (2014). Ethics‐in‐the‐Round: A Guided Peer Approach for Addressing Ethical Issues Confronting Nursing Students. Nursing education perspectives, 35(1), 58- 60.
Kavanagh, A.M., et al. (2013). Time trends in socio-economic inequalities for women and men with disabilities in Australia: evidence of persisting inequalities. International journal for equity in health, 12(1), 1.
Rogers, A. & Pilgrim, D. (2014). A sociology of mental health and illness. London: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Kidd, S., Kenny, A., & McKinstry, C. (2014). From experience to action in recovery-oriented mental health practice: A first person inquiry. Action Research, 12(4), 357-373.
Slade, M., et al., (2014). Uses and abuses of recovery: implementing recovery‐oriented practices in mental health systems. World Psychiatry, 13(1), 12-20.
Whiteford, H. A., et al. (2014). Estimating treatment rates for mental disorders in Australia. Australian Health Review, 38(1), 80-85.

Comments