National Framework For Recovery-Oriented Mental Health Services

The concept of Deinstitutionalisation of mental health patients

Discuss about the Oriented Mental Health Services.

In the previous century, institutionalisation had been an important concept where mental health patients were isolated and treated in Psychiatric hospitals. They had been the only companion for treating g the patients with severe mental illness. They were mainly kept out from the community settings and were treated in such hospitals (Sklar et al., 2013). Several reasons have been noted by researchers for such an activity which included the attitude and the various stigmas that were exhibited by the people of those days against mentally ill people (“History of Mental Health Treatment  Dual Diagnosis”, 2017). Moreover, there was a belief that people who are suffering from mental illness are best treated in such hospitals with its important settings (Shen & Snowden, 2014).

Researchers also commented that resources were also thought to be the reason which prevented any sort of community treatments. A large number of negative effects were intricately associated with the admission of mental health patients in such hospitals (“What Is the Real Cause of Mass Shootings Today?”, 2017). One of the most noted negative issues was that people used to think that patients once admitted there can never hope or make expectations to recover. The main idea that prevailed in those days were that such institutions were warehouse built to keep mentally ill patients for a large period of time with very little expectation that they can ever come back to normal lives (Green & Harvey, 2014). The essay will mainly cover the concept of deinstitutionalisation of mental health patients thereby showing the success of Recovery oriented mental health framework in following the new customs of mental health treatment. However, in the later 50’s of the 20^th century, researchers and different experts looked over the entire state of mental health hospitals and severely criticised the technique for treatment of mental health patients. Different nations shifted the treatment of mental health patient to developed community settings which had a significant impact on the mental health of the patients (Schriff, Cavender & Hoover, 2013).

This technique mainly focused on two important criteria. The first focus was the reduction in the number of the population of mental health patients, releasing patients when recovered, shortening their stays with specially decreasing the admission and readmission rates. The other focus had mainly been the reformation of the different mental health institutionalisation’s process (“Deinstitutionalization – causes, effects, therapy, person, people, health, Definition, History”, 2017). This was mainly done for the complete elimination of dependency, hopelessness and similar other feelings. Three main factors were mostly noted to be the main contributing factors for deinstitutionalisation movement (McWade, 2015). These were the movement based on the socio-political background for community mental health and also open hospitals, advent of psychotropic medicines for controlling the different psychotic episodes along with financial imperatives in different nations (Perry, 2016). Just like different nations have implemented this system of treatment for mental health patients, Australia had also taken an active step by the release of the national framework for recovery-oriented mental health services.  This was proposed b y the eminent researchers and policy makers which have thereby helped the government to initiate initiatives that covered each and every aspect of mental health treatment (Shen & Snowden, 2014). It was published under Dr Peggy Brown who is the chairperson of Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council with guidance from Professor John Allan and previously by Dr Ruth Vine.

The National framework for recovery-oriented mental health services

A very good aspect can be depicted from the framework is that it had made lived experience as the heart of discussion. It is a very good procedure as the ordinary people will be able to associate themselves with their experiences and thereby relate to them and be more comfortable while proceeding with the treatment (Scheid, 2016). Moreover the framework had not only involved the practitioners and the patients but also helped to guide the family members and also the carers of such patients (“Department of Health , A National framework for recovery-oriented mental health services: guide for practitioners and providers”, 2017). The framework has been based on the National Standards for Mental Health Services 2010 indicating the healthcare practitioners to use the standards as a guide This had thereby provided them a consort to abide by which has made their treatment much easier. It had created a very clear concept of different recovery oriented practice domains without any medical terms (Kidd et al., 2014). This had become very simple fir even the novice family members or cares to understand their responsibilities besides practitioners. This framework has stressed upon the mentally ill patient as the prime focus and encouraged a holistic approach rather than tradition medical skills to treat him. Over the years, researchers suggest people feel socially included by integrating holistic approaches (Bond et al., 2014).

The framework had also provided the importance for supporting them for personal recovery along with organisational commitment and workforce development. They have stressed on social inclusion and also different social determinants. Researches over the years have also proved by altering the social determinants for the betterment of the patient and by making him feel important and loved by including at the social level had resulted in faster recovery (Kidd, Kenny & Mckinstry, 2014). The framework had rightfully placed importance of important core principles, values and also behavioural skills with different practice examples that provide an individual an overview about how such sensitive cases should be handled for best results (“National Framework for Recovery-Oriented Mental Health Services Launch – Occupational Therapy Australia”, 2017). Practice guidelines that need to be provided include important criteria required for maintenance like treating the health and well being along with different life circumstances and also different culture and also diversity. Other important criteria that need to be looked over by them are the age and the stage of the mental illness, socioeconomic status and also the individuals and the communities that are involved in the studies (Slade et al., 2014). When a practitioners or healthcare staffs prepares an intervention after thoroughly taking and judging the above mentioned criteria of a patient, he can assure to provide the best treatment tailor made with this person centred approach. 

Guidelines and criteria included in the Framework

Therefore, the Recovery Framework published By Australian Government has rightly followed every necessary steps required to maintain the deinstitutionalisation of mental illness. The guidelines have been found to be successful in establishing community settings as an effective care shelter for mental health patients where their hopes and aspirations to recover and coming back to life is respected and worked for. Keeping in mind the importance of diversity management in interventions are necessary to maintain dignity and ethnicity and moral virtues associated with it. Integration of framework is a very good step as risk management for mental patients are very important as they are vulnerable to various dangers and threats.

References

Bond, G. R., Drake, R. E., McHugo, G. J., Peterson, A. E., Jones, A. M., & Williams, J. (2014). Long-term sustainability of evidence-based practices in community mental health agencies. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 41(2), 228-236.

Deinstitutionalization – causes, effects, therapy, person, people, health, Definition, History. (2017). Minddisorders.com. Retrieved 18 March 2017, from https://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Deinstitutionalization.html

Department of Health | A National framework for recovery-oriented mental health services: guide for practitioners and providers. (2017). Health.gov.au. Retrieved 18 March 2017, from https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/mental-pubs-n-recovgde

Green, M. F., & Harvey, P. D. (2014). Previously institutionalized older patients with schizophrenia show changes in cognitive and functional capacity over time. This study examined changes in real-world functioning in a sample of people with schizophrenia who varied in their history of long-term institutionalization and related changes in real world functioning to changes in cognition and functional capacity over the follow-up period… Schizophrenia Research, 1(1), e47-e52.

History of Mental Health Treatment | Dual Diagnosis. (2017). Dual Diagnosis. Retrieved 18 March 2017, from https://www.dualdiagnosis.org/mental-health-and-addiction/history/

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.

McWade, B. (2015). Temporalities of mental health recovery. Subjectivity, 8(3), 243-260

National Framework for Recovery-Oriented Mental Health Services Launch – Occupational Therapy Australia. (2017). Otaus.com.au. Retrieved 18 March 2017, from https://www.otaus.com.au/divisions/wa-enews-articles/national-framework-for-recovery-oriented-mental-health-services-launch

Perry, B. L. (Ed.). (2016). 50 Years after Deinstitutionalization: Mental Illness in Contemporary Communities. Emerald Group Publishing.

Scheid, T. L. (2016). An Institutional Analysis of Public Sector Mental Health in the Post-Deinstitutionalization Era. In 50 Years After Deinstitutionalization: Mental Illness in Contemporary Communities (pp. 63-87). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Schrift, M., Cavender, A., & Hoover, S. (2013). Mental Illness, Institutionalization and Oral History in Appalachia: Voices of Psychiatric Attendants. Journal of Appalachian Studies, 82-107.

Shen, G. C., & Snowden, L. R. (2014). Institutionalization of deinstitutionalization: a cross-national analysis of mental health system reform. International journal of mental health systems, 8(1), 47.

Sklar, M., Groessl, E. J., O’Connell, M., Davidson, L., & Aarons, G. A. (2013). Instruments for measuring mental health recovery: a systematic review. Clinical psychology review, 33(8), 1082-1095.

Slade, M., Amering, M., Farkas, M., Hamilton, B., O’Hagan, M., Panther, G., … & Whitley, R. (2014). Uses and abuses of recovery: implementing recovery?oriented practices in mental health systems. World Psychiatry, 13(1), 12-20.

What Is the Real Cause of Mass Shootings Today?. (2017). The Balance. Retrieved 18 March 2017, from https://www.thebalance.com/deinstitutionalization-3306067