We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In-patient mental health rehabilitation services provide specialist treatment to people with complex psychosis. On average, rehabilitation admissions last around a year and usually follow several years of recurrent and often lengthy psychiatric hospital admissions.
Aims
To compare in-patient service use before and after an in-patient rehabilitation admission, using electronic patient healthcare records in one National Health Service Trust in London.
Method
We carried out a retrospective cohort study comprised of individuals with an in-patient rehabilitation admission lasting ≥84 days between 1 January 2010 and 30 April 2019, with at least ≥365 days of records available before and after their rehabilitation admission. We used negative binomial regression models to compare the number of in-patient days before and after the rehabilitation admission.
Results
A total of 172 individuals met our eligibility criteria. The median percentage of days spent as an in-patient before the rehabilitation admission was 29% (interquartile range 18–52%), and 8% (interquartile range 0–31%) after the admission. The regression model adjusted for potential confounder variables produced an incidence rate ratio of 0.520 (95% CI 0.367–0.737).
Conclusions
The rate of in-patient service use was halved in the period after an in-patient rehabilitation admission compared with the period before. This suggests that in-patient rehabilitation is a clinical and cost-effective intervention in the treatment and support of people with complex psychosis.
Inpatient psychiatric rehabilitation services for people with complex psychosis promote independent living and reduce readmissions through multidisciplinary recovery-based practice. Yet, little research has explored how these services are experienced by patients and staff, partly due to the difficulties of conducting qualitative research in such settings using interviews and focus groups. We therefore lack an in-depth understanding of how inpatient rehabilitation operates on the ground, including which aspects are experienced as helpful/unhelpful and which factors determine the feasibility/success of recovery-based practice.
Methods
We conducted an ethnographic study of a 16-bed inpatient rehabilitation ward in London comprising six months of participant observation followed by 20 semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 7) and staff (n = 13). For participant observation, over 200 pages of fieldnotes were taken contemporaneously. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using grounded theory and situational analysis.
Results
Our analysis highlights the fundamental importance of relationality in inpatient rehabilitation. Specifically, complex psychosis is characterised by relational impairments and divergences that lead to significant disability. Working with this complex patient group therefore requires nuanced and specialist relational skills. On the ward, these skills were actively nurtured by staff, especially those at lower pay grades, to provide the essential scaffolding for recovery-based practice. Yet, ward staff were often prevented from prioritising therapeutic relations by prevailing structural and institutional arrangements. For example, greater importance was attached to completing technical and bureaucratic interventions; patient contact was reduced for more experienced staff; and staffing levels and material resources for rehabilitation activities were limited. Already feeling underequipped, staff members described how their motivation to cultivate therapeutic relations was further reduced by experiences of structural inequalities inside and outside the ward and, more proximally, by limited psychological and occupational support structures. The consequent undermining of recovery-based practice led to patients experiencing treatment as more restrictive and less therapeutic than it could have been.
Conclusion
Relationality is a key determinant of the experience of treatment within psychiatric units, and yet the subversion of therapeutic relations identified in this study reflects prevailing currents in psychiatry and mental health systems nationwide and beyond. Recovery-based practice and the cultivation of rich therapeutic relationships have among the strongest evidence bases of any interventions for people with complex psychosis. Therefore, to fulfil its clinical potential, inpatient rehabilitation requires investment in the expertise, well-being, and availability of its frontline staff who make or break these relations. This must be facilitated by broader structural and institutional commitments.
To investigate the experiences and support needs of consultant psychiatrists following a patient-perpetrated homicide, an anonymous online survey was sent to all consultant psychiatrists registered as members of the UK's Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Results
Of the 497 psychiatrists who responded, 165 (33%) had experienced a homicide by a patient under their consultant care. Most respondents reported negative impacts on their clinical work (83%), mental and/or physical health (78%) or personal relationships (59%), and for some (9–12%) these were severe and long lasting. Formal processes such as serious incident inquiries were commonly experienced as distressing. Support was mainly provided by friends, family and colleagues rather than the employing organisation.
Clinical implications
Mental health service providers need to provide support and guidance to psychiatrists following a patient-perpetrated homicide to help them manage the personal and professional impact. Further research into the needs of other mental health professionals is needed.
This chapter examines the changes in economic inequalities in the UK and internationally along with the links between poverty and inequality. We outline the way in which health and illness are distributed in the population and the psychosocial factors that operate to create and maintain health inequalities. Poverty and economic inequality are intrinsically and instrumentally related. Both are relevant to deprivation, violate human dignity, hinder social and health goals, and fluctuate in populations in a correlated manner. Health and illness are socially patterned in the same way as we saw for the experience of poverty, and are related to social class and status. Health and ill-health are determined not only by biological mechanisms, but also by a series of upstream factors which are material, psychological, social, and political – that is, by the ‘causes of the causes’. The examination of poverty, economic inequality and health inequalities reveal psychological, social, economic, and political factors that can help us to develop a firmer understanding of the social exclusion of people with mental health conditions as well as important aspects of public mental health.
This chapter examines the ways in which people with mental health conditions who also belong to other excluded groups may be particularly disadvantaged, in general and by mental health services. People with mental health conditions are at risk of social exclusion, but many from certain social identity groups are particularly at risk: for example, women, people from black and minority ethnic groups, and those from sexual minorities. In addition, certain groups of people are defined by their exclusion from society, such as refugees and asylum seekers, prisoners, and the homeless. The occurrence of mental health conditions in these groups is much higher than in the general population and they will often face barriers to accessing essential material resources and adequate healthcare. The presence of mental health conditions and group characteristics intersect to exacerbate the degree of exclusion experienced by the people in these groups. Some combinations may result in particularly profound states of deprivation and destitution. These severe and multiple forms of exclusion have been named ‘deep social exclusion’ or ‘people with multiple and complex needs’, two examples of which are seen in ‘multiple exclusion homelessness’ and people with multiple diagnoses.
This chapter provides an overview of the methodological challenges in researching social inclusion amongst people with mental health conditions and gives examples of interventions that have been shown to be effective in addressing social exclusion including pre-school parenting programmes, early intervention, peer support, recovery colleges, self-care, self-management, and self-directed care. As with all clinical practice, the starting point is the establishment of a therapeutic relationship that encompasses empathy, understanding, hope, and a willingness to help, along with a recovery orientation encompassing collaborative and strengths-based approaches. Much of this does not require a major reorganisation of services, but rather a refocusing and reprioritisation of existing tools and clinical skills, alongside commitment by mental health organisations to ensure their structures facilitate service-user involvement in the planning and delivery of services
This chapter pulls together the findings presented in Section 2 on the extent of social exclusion in people with mental health conditions and the possible causal links between social exclusion and mental ill-heath and health, to build a descriptive model linking these. The evidence supports the contention that people with mental health conditions are excluded from participation in many areas of society and that there are clear social inequalities in mental ill-health. Although this is the case across all forms of mental health conditions, some groups are more at risk of exclusion than others. To build a picture of the relationship between mental health conditions and social exclusion we need to take into consideration the nature of the mental health conditions, material disadvantages, stigma and discrimination, and the effects of the wider community and society. The dynamic nature of exclusion must be considered, including its effects across the life course and generations and the interaction of the factors affecting exclusion. There are the strong contextual effects of material factors, summarised by the association of poor health with income inequality, suggesting that above a certain level economic growth does not produce an increase in population health and may be damaging.
This chapter introduces Section 2 of the book and briefly examines the social inequalities that are risk factors for mental health conditions. Not only do we find that inequalities are associated with the prevalence of mental ill-health, the most disadvantaged also tend to have reduced access to mental health and social services, and, when they do access help, the quality of their experiences and outcomes are often poorer. The chapters in Section 2 examine the social exclusion of people with mental health conditions in five areas of reduced participation: exclusion from material resources, productive activity, social relations and neighbourhoods, civic participation, and health and health services.
This chapter covers the development of social policies and the modern Welfare State. Welfare states represent recognition that the key welfare needs of the country will be met by the state through the provision of income transfers and key public services. Their development has been closely associated with the expansion of citizenship and human rights. In the UK the Poor Law was a long-lasting historical core on which the nation’s welfare state was built, and was associated with the important infrastructure of local authorities, health systems, and education along with the provision of payments in times of need. A well-functioning welfare state is important for the wellbeing of the population and has valuable redistributive roles. They provide social investment in children’s early lives and guard against social risks such as unemployment and poverty. They have the potential to assist economic growth and to provide the infrastructure and support for human capital, such as through the creation of a ‘healthy workforce’. Generally, the more egalitarian states perform better on a range of well-being measures. They remain a central pillar of the maintenance and improvement of the quality of life of people with disabilities associated with mental health conditions.
The term ‘social exclusion’ appears to have originated in France in the 1970s and had a significant influence on European social policy before being taken up by the UK’s New Labour Government in the 1990s. This chapter outlines the concepts of social exclusion and some of the competing discourses associated with the term. Several notable definitions of the term are discussed before we settle on the CASE definition of ‘An individual is socially excluded if he or she does not participate in key activities of the society in which he or she lives’. The concepts of social exclusion may provide added value to discussing the more traditional concepts of poverty and deprivation. It is a relational concept and thus is of importance for developing a social psychiatric perspective. The relationship between Social Exclusion and Social Inclusion is complex and they are not necessarily polar opposites; rather, they may be viewed as a continuum, but a continuum of several dimensions which may differ over time and place. The chapter sets out a framework for examining the social exclusion of people with mental health conditions.
Groups who are socially excluded often lack a voice, something that holds for people with mental health conditions, especially if these are serious and enduring or if they are part of a socio-economically deprived group or a group that is marginalised because of their social identity. This chapter examines the involvement of people with mental health conditions in political and civic activities and the extent to which their human and civil rights are violated. Whilst there is a lack of studies examining the involvement of people with mental health conditions in these areas, there is nevertheless good reason to believe that they are excluded in this domain. Taking a global view of people with mental health conditions there are clear examples of violations of human and civil rights across the world’s continents. These violations take many forms and cover the following domains of exclusion: poverty, education, employment, personal, family and social relations, violence and persecution, health and access to essential services. Worldwide, people with mental and psychosocial disabilities face injustice and are not free from cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment, and punishment; they also lack the right to participate in the economic, cultural, and social life of their communities.
This chapter outlines concepts related to social exclusion that are relevant to people with mental health conditions. These concepts highlight the political and civil nature of exclusion (citizenship, equality and human rights, choice); the importance of material (poverty and deprivation), social (social capital, stigma, and discrimination) and individual factors (participation, choice, and agency); and a means of identifying and describing causal factors for social exclusion (agency and process, dynamic dimensions, multifactorial causes, life course, and longitudinal perspectives). It also covers personal recovery, which provides a bridge between the literature on social exclusion and that on mental health conditions.