Deinstitutionalization of Mental Health Services

Question: Discuss about the Deinstitutionalization of Mental Health Services. Answer: Deinstitutionalization entails replacement of long-stay mental institutions with relatively short-stay ones for persons diagnosed with mental health illnesses. The policy on deinstitutionalization of mental health focuses on trimming the population size in mental health institutions by discharging patients, reducing hospital stays and reducing unwarranted admissions and readmissions. According to Hiday and Moloney (2014), another central focus of deinstitutionalization is a reformation of mental health facilities in order to lower dependence and the feeling of helplessness and other undesirable behavior among patients. Before deinstitutionalization, the role of caregivers and people with lived experience on mental illnesses was not highly regarded. However, with the adoption of the Recovery Framework, the Australian mental health services have since embraced deinstitutionalization (Rosen, 2006). Before the deinstitutionalization practice, it was common and easier to ignore and dismiss people with lived experience of mental illness. However, as the caregivers and patient (themselves) sought a platform to address their own issues; the greater picture began to emerge. It is possible that individuals who possess lived experience on mental health could be having more knowledge and deeper understanding beyond the conventional of medical books (Davidson et al. 2005). Their daily encounter with the patient or by being patients (themselves), they understand the situation better that anyone else. As guided in the recovery approach, health facilities started to integrate the recovery tactic into treatment plans and service delivery in grass root areas and grew into a policy later on widespread acceptance of Recovery Framework is an indicator of its commendable contribution to the health services in Australia (Slade et al., 2014). Great enthusiasm and confidence have been shown in mental health service delivery following deinstitutionalization and Recovery Framework. The process creates humble grounds for collaboration and coordination between various department and chief psychiatrists in sharing of research and merging it with newly observed behavior among patients. In addition, the opportunities for collecting new evidence, creating opportunities for leaders and practitioners to exchange information looms large when deinstitutionalization and Recovery Framework are at play (Goldstrom et al., 2006). There is uniqueness that comes with different involvement stakeholders in the management of mental patients. The health caregivers get to learn the unique skills used by family members to give services to their and the kind of response it triggers. People give their loved ones unconditional love and serve them with humility with rebuking them because of their slowed ability to perform basic tasks. In the family members also get to learn how to handle their mentally ill lovely ones (Davidson et al. 2005). Continued consultations among loved ones of the patient, the patients themselves and the mental health practitioners cannot be down played (Anthony, 2000). Judging from the contributions, they have made National Mental Health Recovery Forum over the years, loved of mental health patients are physicians of their kind. They act as the primary physician in preventing frequent and prolonged institutionalization (Le Boutillier et al., 2011). While tackling mental health conditions, a succinct evaluation tool is vital to decipher the unique defiant behavior. In the absence of a suitable assessment technique, it is problematic to design workable interventions appropriate for patients and their loved families. According to Emerson and Einfeld (2011), utilization of semi-structured interview plan can be instrumental in ascertaining the triggers of specific behavior in people and make use of the facts gathered to devise appropriate and useful support plans. FAI is utilizable in triple-dimensional fronts, that is, direct observation, informant approaches and outcomes (Anthony, 2000). While addressing mental health illness, a succinct evaluation tool is essential to deduce the distinctive challenging behaviors. Exclusive of appropriate assessment, it is problematical to design workable interventions apposite for any patient irrespective of the fact whether they are being institutionalized or be treated from short-stay mental health facilities. According to Emerson and Einfeld (2011), use of FAI, which is a semi-structured interview plan, can be instrumental in determining the causes of actual behaviors in patients and make use of the information gathered to propose usable and meaningful support strategies together with family members. Brinkley et al. (2007) notes that FAI should illustrate an authentic behavior, typify possibilities which predict the occurence and non- occurence of the of an action or behavior. The interview enquiries foretell what initiates the behavior and then oitcome or safeguarding undercurrents that are accountable for creating a hypothesis concerning the behavior exhibited. The collection of more data to sustain or disfavor the inference is dominant (Goldstrom et al., 2006). Information required in mental patients case entails their behaviors with regards to their coping mechanisms, regularity of bouts of anger and distress, longevity, and intensity. In addition, prevailing events related to their treatment, medical or physical health aspects, sleep patterns, dietary habits, programed movements, predictability, alternatives, personnel training and the input of other residents as well as the general environment. Careful coordination is essential to ensure that all these happen are enshrined in the Recovery Framework (Davidson et al. 2005). Conclusion, the framework is now alive and well known in the public front; the actual work is getting underway. Keeping the framework continuously operational is the hard part. This can, however, be realized through embedding its core values into daily health service delivery in very facility around Australia. There is a need for the country to take advantage of the impetus gained following the strategic goals aimed at obtaining frequent access to information on how to respond to mental health patients and their familial affiliations. As an approach that acknowledges persons with lived experience as central to any treatment plans meant for mental health care is vital because it has shown that long-term positive impacts can be attained even in points of primary health care delivery. As partners united towards a common goal, there should be enough attention paid to promote the individuals well-being, preventing ill health and meeting the health happen to be very dynamic. Addressing challenging amo ng mental health patient is paramount towards ensuring that deinstitutionalization is not reversed. The concept takes into consideration the factors that are intrinsic and extrinsic, as well as those, are involved in the etiology. References Emerson, E. and Einfeld, S. L. (2011) Challenging Behaviour 3rd Edition, Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh building, Cambridge, CB2 8RU. UK Brinkley, J., Nations, L., Abramson, R. K., Hall, A., Wright, H. H., Gabriels, R. (2007). Factor analysis of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(10), 19491959 Rosen, A. (2006). The Australian experience of deinstitutionalization: interaction of Australian culture with the development and reform of its mental health services.Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica,113(s429), 81-89. 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. Anthony, W. A. (2000). A recovery-oriented service system: setting some system level standards.Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal,24(2), 159. Le Boutillier, C., Leamy, M., Bird, V. J., Davidson, L., Williams, J., Slade, M. (2011). What does recovery mean in practice? A qualitative analysis of international recovery-oriented practice guidance.Psychiatric services,62(12), 1470-1476. Goldstrom, I. D., Campbell, J., Rogers, J. A., Lambert, D. B., Blacklow, B., Henderson, M. J., Manderscheid, R. W. (2006). National estimates for mental health mutual support groups, self-help organizations, and consumer-operated services.Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research,33(1), 92-103. Davidson, L., O'connell, M. J., Tondora, J., Lawless, M., Evans, A. C. (2005). Recovery in serious mental illness: A new wine or just a new bottle?.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,36(5), 480. Hiday, V. A., Moloney, M. E. (2014). Mental illness and the criminal justice system.The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Health, Illness, Behavior, and Society.