To Attend A Conference To Plan
Mental Health Users Futures In November ?
(read on)
Although the Sainsbury Centre For Mental Health on July 21st altered its name (deleting "Sainsbury" off it) its networking culture remains the same, and its been a powerful mono-driver (not a market and serious choice driver) in mental health planning, and some people attribute the one-size-fits-all Cognitive Behaviour Therapy "Layard" (14th Sept 2005 SCMH speech) thrust to it.
What is clear is in 2001 - 2 it founded the National Institute For Mental Health In England (NIMHE) and aided the then new NIMHE (cost £100 + million by 2009 ) mental health bureaucracy drawn mainly from University Educated Middle Classes that shaped it towards identifying "recovery" as getting mentally ill people back into work. That aim was its cornerstone and it over-rode patient choice of recovery treatments as a User-priority - instead everyone in mental health circles was treated to the User-involvement bureaucratization of patient-hood and the belief that "user-involvement" was the entry level strategy for working . All it proved was that fitter mental health Users got jobs with NIMHE and NHS Trust networks that supported NIMHE and its aims .
SCMH "Pathways to Work" designs and thrusts though have not created the new Jerusalem inside a neconomy that broadly supported middle class tertiary sector aspirations and social-engineering economies but not export driven business and manufacturing . These are very areas where economic and social recovery was needed for 20 years until the big sub prime debt wake up for the UK and others occured . SCMH promoted itself as experts in mental health, but was not expert into seeing into the open illusion that drove the growth of the middle classes in an unreal way across a UK economy and into record debt .
The National Mental Health Development Unit (NHMDU) shadowed itself into place as NIMHE was got rid of in 2009 .. On April 1st 2010 NMHDU bulletined :
"Promoting Recovery-focused services : The NMHDU has agreed a project-led partnership with the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health (SCMH), supported by the NHS Confederation, to promote and support recovery-focused organisations and services. The work builds on the recent SCMH programme, Making Recovery a Reality, and the clear support for recovery approaches in New Horizons. The project will pilot recovery-focused organisational development across selected local NHS sites (still to be determined) and will demonstrate and evaluate outcomes for providers and commissioners. Further information will be available on our website shortly."SCMH's own bulletin below shows only that its still about in a different name after July 21st 2010 with an extra three years of Gatsby Foundation Grant (Sainsbury Trustees) until it finds its new funding - no doubt the lottery . All the other charities like MIND and Rethink (close associates of SCMH) use that route and one wonders whether there is serious lottery audit for grant effectiveness on corporate charities this size .
Later this year in November 2010 the large SCMH network and other people planners that failed to bring about real Patient Choice in mental health for 13 years of Labour rule will meet to decide everyone else's future in mental health for next 20 years ."From this month, Sainsbury Centre will be changing its name to Centre for Mental Health, it was announced today.
The name change will take effect from 21 July. It follows the approval by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation for the Centre's plans to sustain its work beyond the conclusion of the core grant it received each year between 1985 and 2010.
Joint chief executive Dr Bob Grove said: "As we develop our work and find new funding sources for the future, we are changing our name. But our work, our values and our approach will stay the same. As Centre for Mental Health, we have a clear mission to improve the life chances of people with mental health problems in the UK, building on the 25 years of work we have done and looking ahead to the many challenges we still face."
Job Summary - HealthWatch
Public and Patient Experience and Engagement Division ( ppe@dh.gsi.gov.uk ) seeks to put people at the heart of care.
This post exists to bring drive, capacity and policy making expertise to support delivery of the new Government’s vision for putting patients and public centre-stage through strengthened patient experience, user and public engagement.
The Government’s White Paper commits to the establishment of HealthWatch – a new national body strengthening public voice and accountability - by April 2012.
This will be a significant and exciting policy development and implementation challenge requiring stakeholder engagement, legislation, policy development and project planning and delivery skills. This new post will be at the heart of the policy team leading the establishment of national HealthWatch and development of local HealthWatches offering unrivaled experience and exposure at the forefront of delivering the Government’s new vision for health and social care.
The post-holder will work closely with colleagues across government and routinely exploit opportunities for co-production of policy development and implementation working with and through PCTs, PbCs, FTs, LAs ,SHAs & GOs and other partners such as CQC.
The post-holder will be accountable to the Head of Innovation and Integration and will manage two team members.
Key requirements for the role This is a critical, high profile policy role having a major part to play in the development and implementation of HealthWatch.
The postholder will:
Develop and implement policy on Healthwatch and public engagement, inputting to legislation, maximising opportunities for co-design and co-production and ensuring early and proactive engagement of DH policy colleagues, OGDs and stakeholders
Actively promote public engagement and put in place systems to measure and monitor impact of public engagement activity
Handle a significant level of reactive and ministerial work, providing high quality and timely advice and support to Ministers,
Effectively manage people, financial resources and projects
Equality and Human Rights Commission – has been accused of wastefulness by Home Secretary and faces further cuts
In her 2009-10 Annual Report, Making An Impact, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Ann Abraham has revealed a 55 per cent increase in the number of enquiries resolved by her Office in the last year. Published today, the report shows that between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010, her Office resolved more than 24,000 enquiries, helping thousands of members of the public who felt they had been mistreated or suffered poor service at the hands of public services.
The closure of the Healthcare Commission on 31 March 2009 means the Ombudsman is now the second and final point of contact for anyone who wishes to make a complaint about the NHS in England. It is a simpler and faster system for the public, and as the Ombudsman explains in her report, the positive impact of this is already apparent. The transition has been smooth, with the Ombudsman’s Office successfully dealing with a significant increase in the number of health complaints received in 2009-10 – a total of 14,429, compared to 6,780 complaints in 2008-09.
At the same time, the number of complaints about parliamentary bodies has increased from 7,990 in 2008-2009 to 8,543 in the last year. The report also reveals the five government departments which have generated the greatest number of complaints: the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Transport.
Ann Abraham also uses her Annual Report to affirm her commitment to making the system for parliamentary complaints more straightforward. Currently, anyone wishing to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about a parliamentary body must have it referred by a Member of Parliament. This is not necessary for health complaints. The report reveals that 235 complaints were withdrawn last year because the complainant did not get an MP referral, illustrating how this ‘MP filter’ can impede access to the Ombudsman for some. The Ombudsman will be seeking a range of views on this issue in the coming months.
In her report, the Ombudsman also shares the stories of some of the people her Office has helped during the last year. Among these are examples of complaints which have been successfully resolved through ‘intervention’, avoiding the need for a full, and more lengthy, formal investigation. Last year, 321 enquiries were resolved this way – more than double the number in the previous year.
Looking forward to the months ahead, Ann Abraham also warns that poor administration and customer service by public services can be an unnecessary drain on the public purse:
“It is evident that the delivery of good administration will be vital to the effective provision of public services in a straitened fiscal environment. My Office has a crucial role to play in helping Parliament hold public services to account in these areas and in highlighting areas for improvement. Poor customer service and maladministration wastes time and money. To ensure best value from limited resources, public bodies will need to get it right first time by focusing on their customers, acting fairly and transparently and seeking continuous improvement.”
Download the press release 
Download the full report
"Doctor! Doctor! I need to tell you I am in terrible emotional pain and feel suicidal " - "Don't worry we'll build an expensive fence on a bridge" ....Was his reply ...
In fact the patient was some 400 people since 1918 who leapt from Toronto's Bloor Street Viaduct. To be sure the suicides have now stopped (from 9.3 a year to zero) on the bridge after the $5.5 million fence either side of it was erected .Toronto CTV News carry the full story
But do not cheer . People just chose other bridges and the overall suicide rate in the city remained more or less the same ( from 56.4 a year to 56.6)
The point of repeating this story though is to make a statement to enshrine it within . The obvious statement : Is bridge-fence "therapy" effective ?
(you are allowed a partly stupified surprised look on your face as you say this to yourself)
No its not really and as Dr Sinyor states :
"In order to really prevent suicides, you need programs that improve access to psychiatrists and other mental health workers, that improve the sense of hope. And barriers don't do that," he says. Sinyor says it's unfortunate that while there is often funding for concrete restriction projects, mental health support programs remain chronically underfunded."
This echoes other contexts of "barriers to therapy" too that imply self restraint of despair is desireable in the face of emotional desperation whilst not giving a place for that despair to find its unique narrative . Listening to people's life- pain stories and finding the point of tearful acceptances is not about engineering barriers but engineering the allowance of a voice of pain and sharing it toward healing and hearing .
On July 4th Lee Wright aged 58 in UK Birmingham committed suicide by jumping off a mental hospital roof he had found access to . The Birmingham Evening Mail carry the full story written by Alison Dayani . Was Lee Wright on "suicide watch" - did he have therapeutic help that was partnering him in his pain ? His family state :
“Lee was on suicide watch but got through a hatch in the hospital leading to the roof, where he fell to his death,” said the friend. “Everyone who knew Lee is asking themselves how was this allowed to happen? “He was under the care of ward staff, who should have been watching him so closely that there was no opportunity for him to get on to the roof in the first place. It is appalling.”
Has empathic feeling care and the ability to care been replaced by slick barriers and what passes for caring-performance ?
Two months before in May 2010 Barry Gibb committed suicide in North Birmingham UK by "falling" from a balcony - it was not reported by local papers. Barry suffered from schizophrenia although according to friends was a reachable man that was in pain about his life . His life rotated about being cared for but at least one person who knew him says :
"There is a need for a gradual and careful therapy to create a healing place for people like Barry to live with the sad life-pain he suffered and the sense of failures it brings . There's nothing wrong with facing facts but everything wrong in being left to wander in deep misery with them . Sometimes Barry was in deep misery and he should have had more therapeutic help . "
People end themselves to end pain that is not shared socially with the rest of us. Those are the barriers, on the bridges we might remake with greater openness so we all walk with a truer policy of rescue .
In Birmingham UK apparently there are now in 2010 some 70 Cognitive Behaviour Therapists now trained (after 1 year or so of an implementation programme) - a lot of them have no full field experience and frankly are following a rationing policy of sessions . Will they make a difference ? Possibly, but few are trained in grief resolution for issues like long term personal senses of failure and rescuing child abused survivors . Thought (CBT) over heart is the basis of their approach . In this sense its easy to see why some critics of State Therapy are seeing CBT as another long fence and barrier ..
Rage is very important though because if therapeutically guided it acts as both a potential gateway back to pain and grief (the tearful acceptance of truths and losses) however it can without help, also act as a vent for the attempt to overwhelm a bad past by building a body and Ego of "power" and "strength" against the vulnerability of unrecognised needs . It takes either good emotional development to grieve properly (a holding parent) and if not grief needs aiding by a skilled therapist - its not a soft way forwards . Its tough to truly grow by resolving such pain .
In talking to some mental health Users in Birmingham and a couple of therapists there was a converging sense that Raoul Moat's victims were a part of raging hurt response to him discovering he no longer had an emotional "place" with his girlfriend . He was in no-one's heart and care. His tough defense was overwhelmed with pain . Yet what was seen and felt in this tragedy was also the way Raoul Moat finally uncovered his need for a father shortly before he apparently executed himself .The BBC reported he stated near to his end :
"I didn't have a dad" ......"No-one loves me"
The mental health Users all claimed they could see his dramatic suicide coming . A couple said they could not watch the UK media-wild-west manhunt of it all and the somehow indecent media exploitation of the Moat story .. It was socially ugly in all respects . The police though at least had tried to show understanding earlier when they sensed and were advised this was a man in some mental anguish, loss and pain .
Questions do need to be asked about the prison's knowledge of his state, and his aftercare plan after he was recently released . Its easy to understand why some mental health Users would sympathise because the UK is still underserved by therapies which brave human pain and help people face it .Grief about bad family dynamics is all too often still off limits and unhelped .
If a person's pain about poor care (as a child and adult) is voiced - it is usually not heard enough . For some mental health Users this is slowly lethal and many of us who have been in this field for decades know it is also applicable to many more people other than those labeled "mental health Users" ..
Jack said :
"Chain mailed emotions
And flesh feudal castle
Steel muscles and mountain jaw
Only the bullet rang out
Across the moat and opened
The heart's last police patrolled door
No-one listened to me in prison
And rejection by a woman was the final
Dynamite fizzling straw
A man took my place
While I was dying for a guiding dad
And a lifetime of warmth to the core
I spat out my weakness and
Built my castle cannon body of bricks
But finally my loss
And no helping father
Gave me a gun
And I died for a dad with its fire and tricks .. "
For the Victims of Raoul Moat and his secret pain that exploded.
"The problem with the 1 in 4 statistic is that its a socially engineered lie used by Government mental health quango NIMHE - now the National Mental Health Development Unit - and leading mental health charities like Mind, Rethink and the Mental Health Foundation to justify Walden II-like social policy goals on the back of wildly exagerated claims about the dire state of the nations mental health.
It's certainly telling that the main mental health charities who have received massively duplicated anti-stigma campaign funding on the basis of the 1 in 4 stat have declined to comment on the debunking of the 1 in 4 myth and we really should be looking more closely at Government mental health policy, the lack of independence of Britain's leading mental health charities, their conflicting service provider vs representational roles and increasing dependence on Government for contracts and scrutinising outfits like the secretive Mental Health Foundation which inserts itself on to various Government mental health advisory bodies in order to sell a range of faddish CD based treatment 'toolkits ' through captive NHS networks from the Foundation's luxury suite of offices on the South Bank.
It's time to brush aside the silly 1 in 4 agenda and re-focus on challenging the Government's discriminatory exclusion of all NHS mental health services from the Patient Choice agenda , a discriminatory policy the mental health charities have ignored because they are more interested in securing Government contracts."
2.
The way the figure 1 in 4 has often been used socially and economically by the mental health charities - all of which are highly involved with each other's economic and bidding strategies - is to sell to the public the notion that "stigma" too is prevalent and that has been used in turn to skew vision into somehow its all society's fault that people with mental health conditions cannot get work .
1 in 4 thus has a use and its use, is manipulation of social vision towards an argument which in turn is constructed for an "anti-stigmatising" social cause .
Closer examination of the 1 in 4 charity and Gov't led anti stigma approaches reveals quite a money making making machine for the MH charities who have not seriously challenged Government to stop discriminating against all MH Users to give them legal "patient choice" mechanisms for instance .That equal human rights reform has been missed even though its clear many non acute (non sectionable) MH Users need to choose service designs that help them have equal rights as the general population does with surgery and other medical legal "patient-choice" menu's of options.
Thus "1 in 4" have the largest Gov't stigma being operated against them as from Jan 2009 whereby the Directions and Guidance to PCT's forbade patient choice mechanisms to MH Users .. When checked with the DOH its ALL MH Users . The Jan 2009 DOCUMENT IS HERE - its signed off by the Sec of State's senior civil servant
Is 1 in 4 a true figure ? Possibly not . But the way its being used is to ramp up the chances of the MH charities (in league with parts of Govt) to bid for large pots of lottery cash and "convince" everyone through projects that we are all subject to each other's discrimination that hold us back from a life of work and recovery. That is questionable . The quickest way to treat people with equality in MH is for the Government to open the doors of Patient Choice mechanisms and to stop denying that mental health equal rights agenda .
Is there a part industry out there exploiting the Mental Health economy and trying to steer it too (with claims of 1 in 4 ) etc
Of course, its possible to point directly to it , and it does involve the interest of big MH charities and their policy steering networks . They need examining ."
'Nuff Said ..
"BIRMINGHAM LINk UPDATE The following report from the Birmingham LINk Project Manager was submitted:- (See document No. 4)
Maria Bailey, LINk Project Manager, gave a brief introduction to the report, advising Members that Gateway had improved the LINk membership by 1,300 people over the previous 12 months, including individuals and groups.
The 3-year funding for the LINk would come to an end in March 2011 and there had been no indication from the Department of Health regarding future funding.
Nick Hay, Chairman of the Birmingham LINk, gave a short presentation to Members and advised that the LINk was determining who could speak officially on its behalf. He acknowledged the importance of the LINk working with the Committee and playing a complementary role and advised that the LINk had made constructive contact with the Strategic Director of Adults and Communities.
Furthermore, he drew attention to the importance of health, social and welfare links with City Council Departments and the Third Sector.
Bill Poacher, Gateway Family Services CIC, advised that the transfer of responsibility from Gateway to the LINk was moving forward and that it would be important to increase the visibility of the LINk and people’s awareness of it.
Nick advised three immediate priorities for LINk:
developing engagement strategies; agreeing work priorities for the next 12 months; and developing the relationships outlined.
In relation to the earlier discussion on Personality Disorder Services (Minute No. 222), Nick Hay advised that the LINk’s working relationship with BSMHFT had been first-rate and that BSMHFT was the only Trust to have signed an agreement with the LINk on joint working.
Councillor Anne Underwood expressed concern that the membership of the LINk remained low and she expressed doubts regarding what was being achieved. She questioned how the LINk would avoid ‘re-inventing the wheel’ and whether it was building on the work undertaken by patient forums who previously had the same responsibilities.
Bill Poacher advised that the membership included groups and covered a wide range of people and that the LINk had also a range of contributors to activities who had not signed up as members. He reminded Members that the LINk had been in operation for only 18 months.
Maria Bailey advised that Warwick Research Consortium had suggested structural and organisational arrangements had not engaged interest to date, but that the advances by the LINk in looking outwards and setting priorities would raise greater awareness and interest.
In response to questions from the Chairman she advised that there might be no funding to the LINk after March 2011 and that the situation was not clear.
Nick Hay pointed out that there was a requirement for local authorities to establish LINks. In response to questions from Councillor Ansar Ali Khan, Nick Hay confirmed that there was no functioning sub-group in the Heart of Birmingham area nor in the Birmingham East and North area because there had been insufficient interest to date in Birmingham East and North and the Heart of Birmingham sub-group was in the process of being established.
Bill Poacher confirmed that community language leaflets were being used and advised Members that participatory appraisal approaches were being used in work with local black and minority ethnic groups. He advised Councillor Zaker Choudhry that the 500 ‘active’ members were active in terms of consultation and engagement and that a significant number were from black and minority ethnic communities. He noted Councillor Zaker Choudhry’s concern that the expenditure to date had attracted only a small membership, but advised that the membership consisted of a representative core group that formed an important base.
He confirmed to the Chairman that there was a wide age range of people involved in the LINk and that an Older Person’s Action Group had been established to engage with older people. Members noted that the Women’s and Maternity Group for the LINk had found it difficult to engage with relevant groups of local people, but that 150 people had attended a large event on Tuesday 9 March 2010.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Gerry Moynihan, Bordesley Green Neighbourhood Forum, addressed the meeting and drew attention to the Birmingham LINk’s role in relation to the delivery plan for the Local Area Agreement. He noted that £650,000 of funding had been set aside to meet indicator NI4 and questioned what the LINk was doing to meet that indicator.
Maria Bailey advised that an area based grant had been provided to fulfil the indicator and that everything undertaken by the LINk contributed to meeting that target.
In all, there were 22 to 30 different organisations involved with the LINk. She noted Mr Moynihan’s concern that there was low awareness of the LINk, but advised that, while people may not identify with the LINk, they may have participated in activities involving the LINk.
In response to questions from Councillor Margaret Byrne, Nick Hay advised that the LINk had been established by Gateway Family Services CIC and that it was funded jointly by the City Council and the NHS. He noted Councillor Margaret Byrne’s concern that a handyman service funded in Hodge Hill, which had helped with people’s physical and mental health, had been lost.
The Chairman invited a local resident, David Spilsbury, to address the meeting and he advised that he had been the Chairman of the South Birmingham Community Health Council until it had been disbanded. He had contacted the LINk and local groups, but had been concerned that they were not fulfilling a health function, that Gateway was making money from the LINk and that little progress had been made in 2 years.
He was concerned that that situation had arisen mainly because the LINk had been organised by a host organisation rather than by its members. Nick Hay advised that establishing the organisational arrangements had been an important function and that there was a legal requirement to have a host organisation.
Bill Poacher advised that the LINk had begun to change and did involve diverse groups now.
The Chairman proposed, Members agreed, and it was - RESOLVED:- That the report be noted and a further report from the LINk be requested for September 2010."
Mission Statement We are committed to offering hope to those suffering the long-term impact of childhood trauma and neglect, complex enduring difficulties and personality disorders including service-users themselves, their carers and staff who work with them.
Through working jointly with service users, carers and staff and targeting individual needs for support, therapy, education and training, the service offers inclusion, empowerment and therapeutic optimism while reducing stigma and promoting equity of service provision
The Team
We are a small team specialising in the management and treatment of personality disorder and complex difficulties across Birmingham. The team includes doctors, psychotherapists, a psychologist and experts who have experience of both service user and carer roles. These 'experts by experience' support and develop the involvement of service users in the planning and delivery of the service and the formation of service user and carer networks.
Services we offer :
Joint working with teams:
We provide support, training and supervision to teams working with service users with these difficulties with the aim of improving the care teams are able to provide.
Joint assessment:
We may offer specialist assessment jointly with your referrer to think about the best options for future care and support. This may include therapy in CPDS.
Therapy:
We offer group-based therapies using a variety of treatment approaches including analytic and cognitive behavioural psychotherapy. Individual work is undertaken to support the group programmes
Service User and Carer Networks : to link up with others in a similar position and share experiences and ideas
Education and Training :
(NHS, non-NHS and third sector) A Managed Clinical Network to link up agencies and improve consistency and continuity of care
Aims : To include service users with personality disorder and complex difficulties in mainstream services where possible
To support and empower : those working with this service user group to provide care which is informed, effective and sustainable
To provide therapy and signposting : for those service users whose difficulties are too complex to be managed solely within secondary mental health care teams
To train staff : including delivering the national Knowledge and Understanding Framework
To increase awareness and understanding and reduce stigma in relation to this group of service users
You are eligible if: you are 16 or over, have left full time education and your GP is in Birmingham (Birmingham East and North, South and Heart of Birmingham Primary Care Trusts but excluding Solihull Primary Care Trust) you suffer long term difficulties in your relationships and repeating patterns of self-defeating behaviours (meeting criteria for personality disorder diagnosis or with similar complex difficulties).
Referral process
The Community Personality Disorder Service (CPDS) accepts referrals from both primary and secondary mental health care. These may be for informal telephone advice and support, for a consultation visit with the team on one or more occasions or for a joint assessment to look at the individual service user's needs and how they might best be met.
This may include therapy delivered by CPDS in one of its programmes or joint working between CPDS and referrer.
For all but informal enquiries, we request the referrer complete a Referral Form which includes a part for the service user to complete. Accompanying letters are welcomed.
CPDS involvement is designed to support the existing care rather than taking it over. Because of this, it is very important that the referring team remain involved before, during and after any episode of care with our service. The respective levels of involvement of the different services may change over the course of the service user's journey and this will be made transparent to both professionals and service user.
Referrers may obtain a referral form through the Trust Intranet or direct from our team base.
The COMMUNITY PERSONALITY DISORDER SERVICE (CPDS) is a new service which has been commissioned to provide a pan-Birmingham (excluding Solihull) service for personality disordered service users aged sixteen and over.
It is based on a model of empowerment and collaboration with existing teams in all sectors who are working with this group of service users. Our work is underpinned by the principles of accessibility and inclusivity and informed by service user and carer involvement.
Our service is a Tier 1 - 2 service for service users with mild (Tier 1) and moderate (Tier 2) personality disorders as defined in 'Recognising complexity: Commissioning guidance for personality disorder services' (Department of Health, June 2009) although we also provide specialist advice and signposting in relation to Tiers 3 and 4.
We welcome referrals from all Primary Care and secondary Mental Health Care services and offer:
Telephone consultation
Team consultation and/or supervision
Joint assessment
Diagnostic formulation
Management planning
Co-working
Signposting
Therapy Programmes
CPDS involvement is designed to support the existing care rather than taking it over. Because of this, it is very important that the referring team remain involved before, during and after any episode of care with our service. The respective levels of involvement of the different services may change over the course of the service user's journey and this will be made transparent to both professionals and service user.
For these reasons, formal referrals require the referrer to continue to hold a coordinating function in relation to the service user. In Secondary Care, this means being subject to Care Programme Approach with a named Care Coordinator. In Primary Care, this function may be held by the General Practitioner or Primary Mental Health Care Worker BUT if CPDS feels that the service user's needs are too complex or high risk to be managed in Primary Care, we may request referral to a Community Mental Health Team. Should this arise, CPDS will support the referral to Secondary Care.
REFERRALS FROM PRIMARY CARE
If you are working with a service user who suffers from enduring difficulties in relationships, recurrent self-harm, poor impulse control or other self-defeating behaviours and would like support in managing this we are pleased to accept a referral to CPDS. This may be for informal telephone advice and support, for a consultation visit on one or more occasions or for a joint assessment to look at the individual service user's needs and how they might best be met.
If we feel that the service user's needs are too complex to be managed entirely within Primary Care we may request referral to a Community Mental Health Team. This is likely to be the case if it is felt that the service user may benefit from a CPDS Therapy Programme. This is not the case for Stop and Think groups as these are based within teams and do not usually require referral to CPDS.
REFERRALS FROM SECONDARY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
If you are working with a service user whose difficulties appear too complex to be managed solely within a Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) we are pleased to accept a referral to CPDS. This may be for informal telephone advice and support, for a consultation visit with the team on one or more occasions or for a joint assessment to look at the individual service user's needs and how they might best be met. This may include therapy delivered by CPDS in one of its programmes or joint working between CPDS and referrer.
Such service users are likely to present with complex and enduring difficulties in relationships as well as problems engaging effectively with services, mild to moderate risk behaviours towards self/others and possible comorbid substance misuse.
Some may have learned to manage their difficulties through avoidance of interaction with others resulting in social isolation and self-neglect. Many will have struggled to get their difficulties recognised and may have suffered multiple rejections by statutory services which repeats experiences from childhood.
We are pleased to accept telephone enquiries and to provide informal support or advice over the phone. Formal referrals of named service users require the referrer to complete the brief CPDS Referral Form which includes a part for the service user to complete. We appreciate any additional information and welcome an accompanying letter of referral.
Community Personality Disorder Service
Thomas Telford House
Ardenleigh
285 Kingsbury Road
Erdington
B24 9SA
Tel : 0121 301 6855
Fax: 0121 301 6856
Medical records will not be uploaded to a central computer system in some parts of the country until the public is made more aware of the move, the government has agreed.
The British Medical Association raised fears that some regions were seeing an accelerated rollout of the summary care record without proper consent from patients.
More than 1.25 million patient records have already gone online and some 50 million will be uploaded on to the database over time.
The record contains basic details like name, allergies, medication and adverse reactions, with further details possibly being added over time.
.
.jpg)