We had a letter about a patient.
Nothing too unusual about that.
The patient was on a ward, having been there for a goodly length of time, detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 for treatment of delusions and hallucinations and passivity. It was the patient's first psychotic episode, the delusions had been managed in the community with the patient's family providing rich support, but the effects on work and relationships and health and risk to self resulted in police bringing him to hospital for assessment and care.
The patient felt that a secret military experiment with satellites was affecting her. She wrote to civil servants, her Member of Parliament and the Prime Minister. She was convinced that her experiences were through technological processes the military were developing and she wanted the experiment on her to stop.
We had a letter from FTAC.
Have you heard of them? I hadn't. The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was apparently set up in October 2006, according to The Times, and consists of police and mental health workers who "identify suspects." Our patient came to light from their 2 or 3 letters to politicians.
Did you know police screened mail to "identify suspects" and then direct mental health services to intervene? Parliamentary questions have been posed, apparently Mr McNulty had "security, counter terrorism and police" within his portfolio, yet he was the chap explaining FTAC to parliament.
Hmmm. It seems that Big Brother is indeed watching us. And Big Brother's mate is a mental health worker . . .
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Monday, 12 October 2009
Legal matters
No sooner had I posted on laws on Friday, then Dr Grumble posted about legal matters on Saturday. Odd how themes pop up.
It got me thinking.
How much of my study time, over the last year, has been updates on clinical matters? Mostly I do this online and through journals, I used to do it through conferences a lot too. My external study leave (conferences, meetings, teaching away from the weekly local in-house stuff) on clinical material/updates was just 12% last year. Almost all my courses and training was legal.
The ammended Mental Health Act, the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards have a lot to answer for.
It got me thinking.
How much of my study time, over the last year, has been updates on clinical matters? Mostly I do this online and through journals, I used to do it through conferences a lot too. My external study leave (conferences, meetings, teaching away from the weekly local in-house stuff) on clinical material/updates was just 12% last year. Almost all my courses and training was legal.
The ammended Mental Health Act, the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards have a lot to answer for.
Friday, 9 October 2009
Laws
The political parties have had their get togethers and rattled sabres muchly. They've talked of "vision" and "character" and "challenge" with little detail of content. Except the Conservatives, to their enormous credit, who've shared specific policy details. Having endured Thatcher's Britain I'd never have imagined I'd see anything the Conservatives did as laudable; plus ca change.
I still think that the likes of the UK Libertarian Party have the right notion.
Government govern through making laws. We have lots of laws. About time someone, instead of just generating loads of edicts, starting doing away with 'em and pulling back to what's necessary.
In this notion of laws, and the desire to be explicit about laws (rather than just posture and waffle) and to have the minimum amount of law that's necessary, how does that translate to mental health? Well, I'm glad you asked. In 1978 we gratefully received the work of Shem, The House of God, a book dressed with humour as a vehicle for the grim themes explored, which sadly resonates with an awful lot of truth in it. The tale is of a keen junior doctor, who's first year as a doctor is damaging to both him and his colleagues and his patients. Having finished medical school and entered hospital practice, his up beat mentor schools his to survive in the really real world through breaking rules and instead using his own rules.
The House of God gave us 13 laws.
In his sequel, Shem offers us insight into progress as a trainee in psychiatry. With the book come new laws. The 13 laws of psychiatry in Mount Misery are as follows :
I. There are no laws in psychiatry.
II. Psychiatrists specialise in their own defects.
III. At a psychiatric emergency, the first procedure is to check your own mental status.
IV. The patient is not the only one with the disease, or without it.
V. In psychiatry, first comes treatment, then comes diagnosis.
VI. The worst psychiatrists charge the most, and world experts are the worst.
VII. Medical school is a liability in becoming a psycho therapist.
VIII. Your colleagues will hurt you more than your patients.
IX. You can learn everything about a person by the way he or she plays a sport.
X. Medical patients don't take their medication fifty percent of the time, and psychiatric patients don't take their medication much at all.
XI. Therapy is part of life, and vice versa.
XII. Healing in psychotherapy has nothing to do with psychology; connection, not self, heals.
XIII. The delivery of psychiatric care is to know as little as possible, and to understand as much as possible, about living through sorrows with others.
What do you think of these laws? Better than HMG suggest, worse than the opposition are proposing, relevant to mental health work? Discuss.
I still think that the likes of the UK Libertarian Party have the right notion.
Government govern through making laws. We have lots of laws. About time someone, instead of just generating loads of edicts, starting doing away with 'em and pulling back to what's necessary.
In this notion of laws, and the desire to be explicit about laws (rather than just posture and waffle) and to have the minimum amount of law that's necessary, how does that translate to mental health? Well, I'm glad you asked. In 1978 we gratefully received the work of Shem, The House of God, a book dressed with humour as a vehicle for the grim themes explored, which sadly resonates with an awful lot of truth in it. The tale is of a keen junior doctor, who's first year as a doctor is damaging to both him and his colleagues and his patients. Having finished medical school and entered hospital practice, his up beat mentor schools his to survive in the really real world through breaking rules and instead using his own rules.
The House of God gave us 13 laws.
In his sequel, Shem offers us insight into progress as a trainee in psychiatry. With the book come new laws. The 13 laws of psychiatry in Mount Misery are as follows :
I. There are no laws in psychiatry.
II. Psychiatrists specialise in their own defects.
III. At a psychiatric emergency, the first procedure is to check your own mental status.
IV. The patient is not the only one with the disease, or without it.
V. In psychiatry, first comes treatment, then comes diagnosis.
VI. The worst psychiatrists charge the most, and world experts are the worst.
VII. Medical school is a liability in becoming a psycho therapist.
VIII. Your colleagues will hurt you more than your patients.
IX. You can learn everything about a person by the way he or she plays a sport.
X. Medical patients don't take their medication fifty percent of the time, and psychiatric patients don't take their medication much at all.
XI. Therapy is part of life, and vice versa.
XII. Healing in psychotherapy has nothing to do with psychology; connection, not self, heals.
XIII. The delivery of psychiatric care is to know as little as possible, and to understand as much as possible, about living through sorrows with others.
What do you think of these laws? Better than HMG suggest, worse than the opposition are proposing, relevant to mental health work? Discuss.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Cash
I saw a lady on a medical ward. She is relatively young. She has diabetes, dementia and Down's syndrome. She was confused. She had fallen at home, her family explained that they couldn't manage her at home. Many meetings were held; she wanted to go back home.
The assessment of needs was clear. OT, social work and nursing assessments evidenced deficits that were pervasive (and progressive) throughout the 24 hours of a day, so couldn't be met through home care popping in to do specific activities. She needed ongoing care with appropriate, timely interventions to meet her needs. Her family had been doing this but were too burnt out and frazzled to sustain this, which in itself was a source of sorrow, guilt and abject misery.
The lady was an incapacitated adult, at that point in time, with respect to the specific decision on where she would reside. Best Interest meetings were held. All those involved in her care or interested in her welfare chirped up with their views. Everyone said the same thing. She now needed to be in a 24 hour care setting if her needs were to be appropriately met.
We gave our views to her medical team. She went in to permanent care.
It was a good outcome. On review she's very happy in her care home. She enjoys the company, she's warmed to several staff and really enjoys being around them, following them around and as she sees it helping in their duties (she spends ages in their laundry). Takes staff two to three times as long to get the work done with her help, but she enjoys it and it's meaningful activity for her. Staff see it as therapeutic time spent with her, not nuisance. Brilliant.
Her family visit daily and are very happy with things, too.
She didn't want to go in to care. The decision to place her in care was made within the section 4 framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, subsequently with necessary health and social care being delivered through section 5. There's no use of the Mental Health Act 1983. There's no free section 117 aftercare. She and her family pay for care. 10 years ago, requiring someone to reside in a care setting permanently when they didn't wish to be there, she'd have got this for free. Now she pays for it all.
A dismal consequence of the MCA 2005, methinks.
The assessment of needs was clear. OT, social work and nursing assessments evidenced deficits that were pervasive (and progressive) throughout the 24 hours of a day, so couldn't be met through home care popping in to do specific activities. She needed ongoing care with appropriate, timely interventions to meet her needs. Her family had been doing this but were too burnt out and frazzled to sustain this, which in itself was a source of sorrow, guilt and abject misery.
The lady was an incapacitated adult, at that point in time, with respect to the specific decision on where she would reside. Best Interest meetings were held. All those involved in her care or interested in her welfare chirped up with their views. Everyone said the same thing. She now needed to be in a 24 hour care setting if her needs were to be appropriately met.
We gave our views to her medical team. She went in to permanent care.
It was a good outcome. On review she's very happy in her care home. She enjoys the company, she's warmed to several staff and really enjoys being around them, following them around and as she sees it helping in their duties (she spends ages in their laundry). Takes staff two to three times as long to get the work done with her help, but she enjoys it and it's meaningful activity for her. Staff see it as therapeutic time spent with her, not nuisance. Brilliant.
Her family visit daily and are very happy with things, too.
She didn't want to go in to care. The decision to place her in care was made within the section 4 framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, subsequently with necessary health and social care being delivered through section 5. There's no use of the Mental Health Act 1983. There's no free section 117 aftercare. She and her family pay for care. 10 years ago, requiring someone to reside in a care setting permanently when they didn't wish to be there, she'd have got this for free. Now she pays for it all.
A dismal consequence of the MCA 2005, methinks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)