Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T11:41:02.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating mental health policy in England

Care Programme Approach and supervision registers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2018

Jonathan Bindman ,
Andrew Beck ,
Gyles Glover ,
Graham Thornicroft ,
Martin Knapp ,
Morven Leese  and
George Szmukler
Jonathan Bindman*
Affiliation:
Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM), Institute of Psychiatry, London
Andrew Beck
Affiliation:
Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM), Institute of Psychiatry, London
Gyles Glover
Affiliation:
Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM), Institute of Psychiatry, London
Graham Thornicroft
Affiliation:
Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM), Institute of Psychiatry, London
Martin Knapp
Affiliation:
Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM), Institute of Psychiatry, London
Morven Leese
Affiliation:
Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM), Institute of Psychiatry, London
George Szmukler
Affiliation:
Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM), Institute of Psychiatry, London
*
Jonathan Bindman, Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM), Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The Care Programme Approach (CPA) and supervision register policies in England are intended to prioritise patients to receive specialist mental health care.

Aims

To describe and evaluate the practical application of the policies.

Method

A questionnaire survey of key informants in mental health provider trusts and an analysis of aggregated data collected by health authorities using the Mental Illness Needs Index as a measure of population need.

Results

On average, 1175 per 100 000 total population are subject to the CPA (95% Cl=1055–1309) and 8.6 per 100 000 (95% Cl=7.5–9.9) are on supervision registers. Wide local variations in the number of people subject to the CPA and supervision registers are not explained by variations in population need.

Conclusions

Prioritisation to receive specialist mental health services is carried out inconsistently, and inequitable use of resources may result.

Type
Papers
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 175 , Issue 4 , October 1999 , pp. 327 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

The study was funded by a grant from the Department of Health.

References

Burns, T. (1997) Case management, care management and care programming. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 393–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Department of Health (1995) Building Bridges. A Guide to Arrangements for Inter-Agency Working for the Care and Protection of Severely Mentally III People. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Glover, G. R., Robin, E., Emami, J., et al (1998) A needs index for mental health care. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 33, 89–96.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. & Huxley, P. (1991) Common Mental Disorders. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hallwright, S. & Chiplin, J. (1997) New Zealand's Benchmarks for Mental Health Services in 2002. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
Holloway, F. (1994) Supervision registers. Recent government policy and legislation. Psychiatric Bulletin, 18, 593–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, D. (1994) Care programme approach. Recent government policy and legislation. Psychiatric Bulletin, 18, 68–70.Google Scholar
Kluiter, H. (1997) In-patient treatment and care arrangements to replace or avoid it – searching for an evidence-based balance. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 10, 160–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, M., Lockwood, A. & Gath, D. (1995) Social services case-management for long-term mental disorders: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 345, 409–412.Google Scholar
McCreadie, R. G., Leese, M., Tilak-Singh, D., et al (1997) Nithsdale, Nunhead and Norwood: similarities and differences in prevalence of schizophrenia and utilisation of services in rural and urban areas. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 31–36.Google Scholar
NHS Management Executive (1994) Introduction of Supervision Registers for Mentally III People from 1 April 1994. Leeds: NHS Management Executive.Google Scholar
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1995) Report 1: The Prevalence of Psychiatric Morbidity among Adults Living in Private Households. London: HMSQ.Google Scholar
Slade, M., Powell, R. & Strathdee, G. (1997) Current approaches to identifying the severely mentally ill. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 32, 177–184.Google Scholar
Tyrer, P., Morgan, J., Van Horn, E., et al (1995) A randomised controlled study of close monitoring of vulnerable psychiatric patients. Lancet, 345, 756–759.Google Scholar
Wing, J. K. (1994) Mental illness. In Health Care Needs Assessment (eds Stevens, A. & Raftery, J.), pp. 202–304. Oxford: Radcliffe.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.