Sadly for me I couldn’t be at Geoff Brennan‘s meet-up today with Cardiff and Value UHB mental health nurses to talk about the Safewards study and its implications. But here’s a message Geoff sent, and a fine photo, to mark the occasion:
Category: People
Mental health policy for nurses
Congratulations to RCN Mental Health Advisor Ian Hulatt for editing this new book, Mental health policy for nurses. This hits the shelves any day now, and I want to give it a plug via this post. Here is what the publisher is saying:
Policy determines much of what nurses actually do on a daily basis, which means it is essential for nurses to engage with policy if they are to understand their own practice. Mental health nursing in particular has been shaped by a variety of policy factors in the past fifty years. In this new textbook, edited by the mental health advisor to the Royal College of Nursing, a range of experts in their field introduce the essential elements of mental health policy to students and experienced practitioners. The book covers a broad range of areas, including settings for care and the historical context, policy affecting various diagnoses and service user groups, and how policy is translated into action. Clinical examples are drawn on throughout, to help students think about the real-life context of what can be a difficult subject.
It will be essential reading for pre-registration mental health nursing students, and valuable to those working in practice who want to gain an understanding of policy.
There are some nice-looking chapters here, as the contents list suggests:
The History of Mental Health Policy in the United Kingdom Peter Nolan
The European Context Neil Brimblecombe
Community Services Ben Hannigan
Psychosis Norman Young
Older People Elizabeth Collier and Catherine McQuarrie
Dementia Trevor Adams
Personality Disorder Karen M. Wright
Service User Involvement Mick McKeown and Fiona Jones
Equalities in Mental Health Nursing Ann Jackson
Child Mental Health Policy in the UK Tim McDougall
Dual Diagnosis Cheryl Kipping
Policy into Action? Cris Allen
I was pleased to have a chance to contribute, writing a chapter addressing past and present policy for mental health care in the community. I started with an account of historical developments, and worked my way towards an analysis of recent policy including changing roles for nurses and the impact of austerity.
Review fever
Just what we need: another review of nurse education. Yesterday the Nursing Times carried this item reporting a joint Health Education England and Nursing and Midwifery Council plan to investigate standards. The NT says:
Health Education England and the Nursing and Midwifery Council will launch the review in May to specifically investigate the standard of education provided to around 60,000 nursing and midwifery students each year.
The Shape of Caring Review, which will be led by Lord Willis of Knaresborough, will also consider the standard of post-registration training for the NHS nurses once they have qualified. The review is due to produce a final report by early next year.
It follows concerns over the standard of nurse training raised by the Francis report into care failings at Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust.
As part of its work, the review will examine the controversial pre-nursing experience pilots that have seen around 160 students work as healthcare assistants for a year before starting courses, and which were a key plank of the government’s initial response to the Francis report.
This is the same Lord Willis who chaired the RCN’s review of nursing education which reported in 2012, and about which I wrote a piece on this site here. As I wrote then, there was some scepticism on the timing given that universities and their partners in the NHS were in the throes of reshaping their pre-registration curricula following the publication in 2010 of new NMC standards for pre-registration education. This latest review is going to start before more than a handful of new, post-2010, nurses have registered and certainly before we know anything of the impact of these new regulatory standards on practice. This is exactly a point the NT goes on to make:
But Professor Ieuan Ellis, chair of the Council of Deans of Health, said he was concerned the review would duplicate work already underway by “multiple different projects and working groups”.
“This group needs to reflect on the reviews that have already happened, some quite recently – otherwise there will be a lot of duplication going on,” he added.
Jackie Kelly, head of nursing at the University of Hertfordshire, pointed out that the NMC had already imposed new standards for pre-registration courses in 2010, and stressed 50% of nursing students time was spent in a clinical setting away from the classroom.
She said: “We have already gone a long way and I wouldn’t want the review to move in a direction of travel before we have seen the output from the new standards agreed in 2010.”
Quite so.
Making psychiatric wards safer and more peaceful
Safewards, led by Professor Len Bowers, has been funded through a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research and aims to make psychiatric hospitals more peaceful, safer and therapeutic.Twice in the last year I have had the opportunity to hear Len present the thinking behind the Safewards model, outline the design and methods of the Safewards randomised controlled trial and talk through its main findings.
Following the link from the Safewards logo above takes you to the project’s website. This is packed full of useful information, including the detail of the simple nursing practices which Len and his team found reduced rates of conflict and containment in the hospital wards participating in their study. For an accessible introduction to what Safewards is all about, there is also this video in which Len presents his work to an audience in Melbourne in October 2013:
As I suggested in a meeting yesterday with esteemed Cardiff and Vale University Health Board colleagues, this really is exceptionally important new knowledge for mental health nurses. Now that the main trial is complete Len and his collaborators look to be devoting much of their energies to helping inpatient mental health staff and managers make use of the Safewards interventions in their everyday practice. I wish them every success, and am encouraging people to find out more and to spread the word.
Multiple Mini Interviews
Over the weekend I was sorry to learn that Inspector Michael Brown’s much-respected, and award winning, MentalHealthCop blog and twitter account have been suspended. I hope he is able to get back to both in the very near future.
Meanwhile, back at base I spent pretty much all of today helping select future students of nursing using multiple mini interviews (MMIs). Not sure about MMIs? Neither was I until recently. Here’s what we’re saying about them in the School of Healthcare Sciences at Cardiff University:
The interviews at Cardiff University School of Health Care Sciences for Nursing involve the use of a Multi Mini Interview procedure which is based on the Objective Structured Clinical Examination format that is commonly used by Health Sciences programmes to evaluate clinical competence.
The interview process is an opportunity to assess interviewees in person and assess information, such as personal qualities, that is not readily forthcoming in traditional application processes. The majority of these interviews will take place the week commencing 17 February 2014.
The MMIs are made up of a series of short, carefully timed interview stations which provide information about applicants’ ability to think on their feet, critically appraise information, communicate ideas and demonstrate that they have thought about some of the issues that are important to the nursing profession. There are six stations in total. Each mini interview lasts a maximum of 5 minutes.
The School assesses the ability to apply general knowledge to issues relevant to the culture and society in which students will be practising, should they be successful in gaining admission to (and ultimately graduating from) the School. Equally important will be an assessment of the ability to communicate and defend personal opinions.
That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Sticking to time is clearly important, and there’s plenty of moving around for applicants as they shuttle from station to station. As a process I rather liked it. I’ll be back for another slice of the same tomorrow, but will spare a thought for my esteemed Mental Health Nurse Academics UK colleagues who will be meeting at Lincoln University.
Restrictive practices
Today is the closing date for responses to the RCN’s consultation on the use of restrictive practices in health and adult social care and special schools. Michael Coffey has solicited views from members of Mental Health Nurse Academics UK, and has used these to inform the group’s formal submission. You can see what MHNAUK has contributed by following this link.
End of week catch-up
This week I learnt a whole lot more about framework analysis, having made the trip to City University London to join others in the COCAPP team for a NatCen training event. This was also my first introduction to the use of NVivo (a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software package), my experience having previously been with Atlas.ti.
Elsewhere the RiSC project team convened, via teleconference, for an important decision-making meeting. We’re entering the closing stages of this study, and it’s interesting stuff: about which I’ll be able to say more in time.
And, as planned, this was also the week I made the short hop to Cardiff Met (at the invitation of Lynette Summers in the University’s Library and Information Services) to meet with folk there to talk about my experiences in using this blog, and other things, to bring my research and writing to a wider audience. That was fun, and I hope useful, too.
Along with some classroom teaching, marking, a committee meeting and reading a nearly-there doctoral thesis that just about sums up my recent workplace activities. Varied, as always. Looking ahead, I realise that (unusually) I’ll be missing the next meeting of Mental Health Nurse Academics UK due to take place at Lincoln University on February 18th. Other commitments have won out on this occasion.
Closing the Gap?
Earlier this week, over the border in England Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg put his name to a new policy document titled Closing the Gap: Priorities for essential change in mental health. The foreword to this includes the line that ‘Mental health is moving up the policy agenda across government’. This is a welcome assertion. It is also one which deserves to be examined alongside evidence of recent cuts in funding and retractions in services at a time of rising demand (see here and here for my earlier posts on mental health in an era of austerity).
This is a document listing 25 areas for change in four areas: increasing access to mental health services; integrating physical and mental health care; starting early to promote mental wellbeing and prevent mental health problems; and improving the quality of life of people with mental health problems. It closes with the maxim that mental health is everybody’s business. Initial coverage in The Guardian included a fairly straightforward description of the document’s content, and particularly its promise of increased choice for people using services and the introduction of waiting time targets. In The Independent, Paul Jenkins (from the organisation Rethink Mental Illness) was more searching, contrasting Closing the Gap‘s aspiration with what we know about frontline services:
[…] historically, mental health has always had a raw deal when it comes to NHS spending and accounts for 22% of illness in this country, but only gets 11% of the NHS budget. On top of this, over the last two years, we’ve seen a 2% cut in mental health spending despite increasing demand. Services which were already struggling are being squeezed even further. So how can the Government now make real inroads into significantly improving care and introducing choice when the services simply aren’t there? People are waiting months, even years for treatment.
If politicians really want to improve the lives of people with mental illness, we need to see investment in mental health services – in the very least services should not be cut. We should also be making sure that people who are too ill to work are properly supported with the benefits there are entitled to and with services that respond when and where they are needed. And when we see an action plan, it needs to set out specific commitments on how things are going to change and by when.
Well said. Personally I am minded to think, again, about the mental health field’s wicked problems, and how large-scale policy always contains just one version of what a system’s most pressing challenges (and their solutions) might be. Closing the Gap has plenty to say on what ought to be happening at local level (better preparation of commissioners of mental health services, more mental health training for primary care workers, more psychological therapies, and so on). What it does not unequivocally say is that ‘the problem’ may also be one of underfunding relative to levels of need.
I am also reminded of how local service change in response to national policy can lead to unintended consequences (something I have written about at length here). Here’s a speculative example to illustrate this point. Typically, mental health teams have responsibilities to respond in timely fashion to new requests for help (from colleagues in primary care, for example) whilst simultaneously providing care to people already using their services. Who knows, then, what the wider system effects might be when waiting limits for mental health services are introduced next year, as Closing the Gap promises they will? At local level, will redoubled efforts to respond to new referrals mean that the delivery of ongoing care and treatment will suffer? Will NHS organisations be tempted to establish new types of service specifically to reduce waiting times? If so, how will these find their feet in systems which are already organisationally complex? None of this is to say, of course, that waiting periods are problems which do not deserve to be tackled, but it is to say that actions to address perceived deficiencies always reverberate.
‘Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions’: 50 years and counting
Happy new year. In the midst of a series of holiday period email exchanges Michael Coffey happened to mention that 2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Anselm Strauss and colleagues’ Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions.
This is a fine book indeed, which during my time as a PhD student concerned with work and roles in mental health care was an absolute essential. In it, Strauss and his collaborators reported findings from prolonged and intensive fieldwork conducted in two North American psychiatric hospitals. Whilst today’s qualitative research reports will typically include lashings of direct data extracts, Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions has little in the way of what Strauss et al referred to as ‘illustration and quotation’. Yet I never once recall, as a reader, doubting that Strauss and his team were truly there, participating in and recording everyday hospital life and its organisation.
It is at this descriptive level that the book initially works: as a meticulous account of the interplay between ideas, professions and practices in an area of health care which (both then, and to this day) happens to be particularly contested. One part of the dataset drawn on in the book comes from a questionnaire, designed to capture information about affiliations to particular treatment ideologies. From this nurses emerge as being ‘ideologically uncommitted’. In a later, detailed, section Strauss et al wrote of the problems faced by nurses in reconciling their managerial, administrative and therapeutic tasks and in answering the still-pertinent question:
…at the heart of her professional identity: What does therapeutic action toward patients actually involve for a psychiatric nurse?
My copy of Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions is the edition published in 1981, for which a new introduction was added. In this, Strauss and his collaborators wrote of their original ambition to produce a book which was not only descriptive, no matter how detailed or accurate, but which was also theorised. It was the fieldwork and the findings reported most completely in this monograph that gave rise to the idea of the negotiated order. This is a sociological theory of importance which, in the decades following its introduction, went on to develop a life of its own. As Strauss et al wrote in their 1981 introduction, their original observation that theory might emerge from data represented a considerable methodological departure, more fully articulated at a later point with the introduction of grounded theory. Here, then, is a second way in which Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions works, and remains of interest to people unconcerned with research into the world of mental health care: as an exemplar of how data and theory can dance together.
Today I’ve turned up this review of the book, which appeared in 1965 in the journal now called Psychiatric Services. In it the reviewer sums up with the recommendation that:
All in all, most professionals will find this book profitable to read, study and think about.
I concur, and commend this classic text to professionals and others alike. And as an aside, perhaps this short celebratory post can help persuade students (usually undergraduates, in my experience) that books and articles which happen to be more than five years old can still be worth reading.
Education for community mental health work
This week brought a COCAPP meet-up in Bristol, where we had the chance to plan our work for the immediate period ahead. The RiSC team also met, albeit in teleconference rather than face-to-face fashion. I’ve had pre-registration student nurses’ assignment work to begin marking, and this afternoon will be taking part in a joint Cardiff University/Local Health Board discussion on the future provision of post-qualification modules for community mental health practitioners.
This afternoon’s meeting has given me pause for thought, and a chance to reflect a little on my long involvement in post-registration mental health education. It was explicitly to lead a full-time, one-year, programme for actual or intending community mental health nurses (CMHNs) that I was recruited into what was then the University of Wales College of Medicine in 1997. Education, and my role, have changed considerably in the period following. In Wales there is no longer a fully funded, full-time, course of this type. Like pretty much everywhere else, here education for health care workers beyond registration has increasingly become part-time, and modularised.
I once wrote about the CMHN course we ran in Cardiff in the journal Nurse Education Today. The article was titled ‘Specialist practice in community mental health nursing‘, and had an abstract which went like this:
Community mental health nurses (CMHNs) work in an increasingly complex health and social care environment. Over recent years, the evolving direction of general health service and specific mental health policy has directed CMHNs towards: the provision of clinically-effective interventions; a closer attention to meeting the needs of people experiencing severe and long-term mental health problems; the simultaneous provision of services to meet the needs of people experiencing a wide range of mental health problems presenting in primary care settings; greater collaboration with workers representing other disciplines and agencies; and the development of active partnerships with mental health service users. This paper explores the context within which CMHNs practise, and within which education programmes preparing specialist practitioners in community mental health nursing have been developed. One recently-validated specialist practice course for CMHNs is described in detail, with the intention of stimulating discussion and debate surrounding the practice of, and the educational preparation for, community mental health nursing.
I can’t claim that this paper did actually trigger any particular debate, but at least I tried.
I also had the chance, during the time that I ran Cardiff’s full-time CMHN course, to survey the leaders of other programmes of this type offered elsewhere in the UK. A paper called, ‘Specialist practice for UK community mental health nurses: the 1998-99 survey of course leaders‘ appeared in the International Journal of Nursing Studies. This was co-written with Philip Burnard, Debs Edwards (who, I am delighted to say, is now project manager for the RiSC study already mentioned in this post) and Jackie Turnbull. In the paper’s abstract we said:
Surveys of the leaders of the UK’s post-qualifying education courses for community mental health nurses have taken place, on an annual basis, for over 10 years. In this paper, findings from the survey undertaken in the 1998–99 academic year are reported. These findings include: that most course leaders do not personally engage in clinical practice; that interprofessional education takes place at a minority of course centres, and that course philosophies and aims are characterised by an emphasis on both outcomes (in terms of, for example, skills acquisition, knowledge development and the ability to engage in reflective practice), and process (adult learning).
And then there was a paper called, ‘Education for community mental health nurses: a summary of the key debates‘ which Steve Trenchard, Philip Burnard, Michael Coffey and I wrote for Nurse Education Today. Here we said:
A wide range of post-qualifying education courses exist for community mental health nurses (CMHNs) working in the UK. ‘Specialist practitioner’ courses emphasize shared learning between CMHNs and members of other community nursing branches. These programmes typically include course content drawing on the social and behavioural sciences, as well as on material more tailored to the clinical needs of practitioners. Such courses and their predecessors have been subject to criticism, however. Courses have been described as anachronistic, and failing to take account of recent advances in treatment modalities. In addition concerns about the generic focus of some programmes have also been raised. Educational alternatives, such as programmes preparing nurses and other mental health workers to provide ‘psycho-social interventions’ have, correspondingly, become increasingly popular. In this paper we explore some of the debates surrounding the education of CMHNs, and explore the context in which CMHNs work and in which educational programmes are devised. We consider the multidisciplinary environment in which CMHNs practise, the differing client groups with which CMHNs work, the developing policy framework in which mental health care is provided, demands for more user-responsive education, and the relationship between higher educational institutions and health care providers. We conclude the paper with a series of questions for CMHN educators and education commissioners.
And there are other papers and book chapters, too, which I won’t refer to now. But I am reminded that I once spent large parts of my working life running programmes for community mental health workers, and managed to research and write a fair bit about the same. Perhaps today’s meeting will lead to a modest rekindling.
Ben Hannigan's blog 