Mental Health Nursing And Policy Making In Australia

Identification of an appropriate framework for policy analysis

Discuss about the Mental Health Nursing and Policy Making.

Australia generates superiority in its different cultural setup. The various social classes and ethnic backgrounds prove to be an interesting topic of study. Similarly, the analysis of the Australian health sector calls for understanding and integrating the communities’ beliefs to obtain certified results. However, racial and ethnic minority groups such Aboriginal and people of Torre Strait Islanders have limited access to mental health care (Gibson et al., 2015, 71). The claims have seen the Australian government liaising with other health providing institutions for amending policies which are aimed at improving the health care in the nation while reducing the cost effectiveness of the services. Additionally, the plans have been made holistic with the central point being to involve all the ethnic groups in decision making. As such, the paper seeks to clarify the need for execution of “National Health Mental Health Policy 2008” in improving health care service delivery. Notably, the paper has three sections namely framework for policy analysis, the socio-political context for policy development, and discussion on an example of policy implementation as shown below.

A national recovery-focused framework works well with the Australian government and its people. Since the formulation of the movement in 2011, the model has seen many minority groups and mentally ill people access quality health care at an affordable cost (powell et al., 2017). The recovery framework plays a pivotal role in the Australian health sector as it integrates the health professionals, patients, families, and carers in combating chronic mental illness. Research indicate that the grass root movement mobilized more minds in Australia and after some time both the local and national governments enforced the policy at a national level as a long-term strategy to curb and treat mental illness (Lawrence et al., 2013, 2539). Also, the national recovery based framework appreciated the diverse culture in Australia and used it to its level best to gain a culturally-oriented health service delivery mechanism. For instance, the structure has allowed the Torre Strait Islanders and Aboriginal people to be at the center of mental health care delivery through conducting researches and interviews.

Apart from laying the foundation for championing the rights of mentally ill individuals and their families, the framework offers an opportunity for information awareness among the Australian citizens. The framework is presented in two documents each with specific guidelines: a health document providing background information on the policy of the organization and a document with revised guidelines for mental health professionals. Furthermore, the constitutional recovery framework facilitates the identification and treatment of mental disorder in people at an early stage through lived experiences, research, and assessment of the psychological health industry in Australia (Lawrence et al., 2013, 2539).

Socio-political context for policy development

The framework is considered appropriate because of two primary roles: first the framework has the interest of stakeholders such as patients, government, and non-governmental officials, and family members at the center of the project thus ensuring its sustainability. Secondly, the framework uses holistic methods such as word of mouth, shared experiences, online publications and seminar to create awareness on the risk associated with chronic mental illness and the possible ways to combat the issue. Therefore, the framework marks a notable regime by the Australian government to establish the national policy agenda of the “Roadmap for National Mental Health Reform 2012-22 and the Fourth national mental health Plan.”

The Australian mental health care is affected by communal, financial, and political factors. The section of the paper pays attention to social and political determinants of mental health care with examples drawn from the health sector of Australia. Social and political factors operate within policies outside the health sector but directly affect the mental health system (Rogers and Pilgrim, 2014). Social factors include poverty, education, unemployment, homelessness, and urbanization. Poverty is both an economic and social constraint in mental health care. Recent studies show that low-income earning people are prone to environmental and psychological stress which makes them susceptible to mental disorders. Also, poor people face challenges when accessing health services regarding cost. Secondly, urbanization is related to industrialization which at times has negative impacts on the social life of modern families. In urban centers, environmental factors such as pollution affect mentally ill persons and their families. Thirdly, poverty results in homelessness due to inability to pay rent. Again, poverty prone areas record increased cases of inadequate housing hence increased exposure to psychological stress (Corrigan et al., 2014, 37-70).

Therefore, the Australian national housing policies have to intervene and help rehabilitate the sick and chronically mental ill. Further, unemployment breeds stress where several cases have resulted in suicide. Moreover, unemployment affects the elderly and adult as they try to cope with the realities of re-entering the job market. Finally, implementation of a curriculum to create awareness on mental health care in schools will boost the measures of combating mental illness among youth and adults alike. A report by the WHO indicated that education is a preventive mechanism against mental illness through training seminars that develop problem-solving skills and offer guidance to people on how to get over mental health risk issues such as stress (Davies and Gray, 2015, i45-i61). On the other hand, government policies promote improved mental health care through legislation.

Identification and description of policy implementation in the Australian mental health care

The Australian healthcare industry provides a holistic range of services, for instance, the mental health care which is financed through taxation.  In the year 1984, the Australian government introduced Medicare cover in public hospitals (Robson et al., 2013, 409-417). The Medicare cover allows people free access to hospital services. Subsequently, a report by the Australian health ministry indicated that health status is progressively improving as services delivery is done effectively. For example, since the implementation of the Medicare in public hospitals, the life expectancy is approximately 78.9 with increased aging population. Similarly, the policy implementation has also affected the mental health sector as the government has allowed free access to medication for the minority groups of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islands (Banks, J. 2015). However, the open access to medicines in public hospitals has not helped narrow the gap between the indigenous community and the non-indigenous citizens.

Moreover, it is important to recognize the role played by the central government in Australia to finance the health sector. As much as the government relies on general taxation to draft budget on supplementing the health care system the demands in place are high and call for other means of aid to help boost the sector.  Government policies through legislation allow the national government a chance to liaise with the level government in revenue collection, but the federal government does the allocation. Hence, equal distribution of resources depending on the health demands. Besides, the private health sector also receives funding and certification from the government (Grol et al., 2013). The national government has laid strategies in place to finance both the public and private health industry. The only difference lies in the types of insurance covers used for each sector. In public hospitals, the insurance cover by the national government limits the patient to a particular doctor whereas in a private hospital the health insurance allows a patient to choose a physician with his/her preferences. Finally, the Australian government is working hard to ensure implementation of personally controlled electronic record to improve service delivery in the mental health system.

Conclusion

The Australian government just like any other government is working hard to ensure its citizen’s access improved health care at a cost effective fee. The inclusion of social, economic, and political policies are all designed to improve service delivery and combat mental health disorder. However, several mentioned factors such as unemployment and limited education prove to be problematic in access to quality mental health care amongst the Aboriginal and Torre Strait Island people. As such, the government advocated for the implementation of a national recovery-oriented framework to incorporate the cultural beliefs of the indigenous and non-indigenous Australians in treating chronic mental illness. That said it is possible to discern that the Australian government has the interest of the citizens who have the mental illness, their families, and health professionals. The policies help in ensuring the establishment of a customer-oriented platform for analysis and assessment of mental health disorders affecting the population.

Banks, J.A., 2015. Cultural diversity and education. Routledge.

Corrigan, P.W., Druss, B.G. and Perlick, D.A., 2014. The impact of mental illness stigma on seeking and participating in mental health care. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(2), pp.37-70.

Davies, K. and Gray, M., 2015. Mental Health Service Users’ Aspirations for Recovery: Examining the Gaps between what Policy Promises and Practice Delivers. British Journal of Social Work, 45(suppl 1), pp.i45-i61.

Dimick, J.B. and Ryan, A.M., 2014. Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: the difference-in-differences approach. Jama, 312(22), pp.2401-2402.

Gibson, O., Lisy, K., Davy, C., Aromataris, E., Kite, E., Lockwood, C., Riitano, D., McBride, K. and Brown, A., 2015. Enablers and barriers to the implementation of primary health care interventions for Indigenous people with chronic diseases: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 10(1), p.71.

Grol, R., Wensing, M., Eccles, M. and Davis, D. eds., 2013. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care. John Wiley & Sons.

Lawrence, D., Hancock, K.J. and Kisely, S., 2013. The gap in life expectancy from preventable physical illness in psychiatric patients in Western Australia: retrospective analysis of population based registers. Bmj, 346, p.f2539.

McGorry, P., Bates, T. and Birchwood, M., 2013. Designing youth mental health services for the 21st century: examples from Australia, Ireland and the UK. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 202(s54), pp.s30-s35.

Nilsen, P., 2015. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10(1), p.53.

Powell, G., McMahon, S. and Jones, D., 2017. Aboriginal Voices and Inclusivity in Australian Land Use Country Planning. KnE Engineering, 2(2), pp.30-36.

Robson, D., Haddad, M., Gray, R. and Gournay, K., 2013. Mental health nursing and physical health care: A cross?sectional study of nurses’ attitudes, practice, and perceived training needs for the physical health care of people with severe mental illness. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 22(5), pp.409-417.

Rogers, A. and Pilgrim, D., 2014. A sociology of mental health and illness. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).