Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:13:19.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protocol for assessing services for people with severe mental illness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

John Wing ,
Susannah Rix ,
Roy H. Curtis ,
Paul Lelliott  and
Alan Beadsmoore
John Wing*
Affiliation:
College Research Unit, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, London
Susannah Rix
Affiliation:
College Research Unit, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, London
Roy H. Curtis
Affiliation:
College Research Unit, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, London
Paul Lelliott
Affiliation:
College Research Unit, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, London
Alan Beadsmoore
Affiliation:
The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, London
*
Susannah Rix, Health Advisory Service 2000. 5th Floor, 11 Grosvenor Crescent, London SWIX 7EE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The Clinical Standards Advisory Group was asked by UK health ministers to advise on the standards of clinical care being achieved for people with schizophrenia. A subcommittee commissioned a review of standards, followed by research into how far these were reflected in contracts and met by providers.

Method

No comprehensive but practical set of standards was found. A protocol of 143 items of good service practice was constructed, and applied by teams visiting services in 11 UK districts. The team appraisals were summarised in 20 key points, each scored 0 (absent) to 4 (excellent performance). Seven points were used to assess standards of commissioning and 13 for standards of service provision.

Results

When placed into rank order, the mean key point scores for commissioners and providers in the same district tended to be very similar. Total district scores were then used to assign districts to one of three groups. Four performed reasonably well, five were moderate and two were poor.

Conclusions

One of the key elements associated with these differences was the local level of morale. After wide consultation, a revised protocol of 26 key points for direct rating was drawn up and has since been further tested.

Type
Papers
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 172 , Issue 2 , February 1998 , pp. 121 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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.)

References

Audit Commission (1994) Finding a Place: A Review of Mental Health Services for Adults. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Clinical Standards Advisory Group (1995) Schizophrenia: Volume I. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1990) The Care Programme Approach for People with a Mental Illness referred to the Specialist Psychiatric Services. HC (90) 23 LASSL(90)11. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1995) Building Bridges: A Guide to Arrangements for Interagency Working for the Care and Protection of Severely Mentally III People. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Glover, G. (1995) The public health perspective. In Measurement of Mental Health: Contributions from the College Research Unit (ed. Wing, J. K.), pp. 71–80. London: College Research Unit.Google Scholar
Jarman, B. (1983) Identification of underprivileged areas. British Medical Journal, 286, 1705–1709.Google Scholar
Jarman, B. & Hirsch, S. (1992) Statistical models to predict district psychiatric morbidity In Measuring Mental Health Needs (eds Thornicroft, G. Brewin, C.R. & Wing, J.), pp. 62–80. London: Gaskell.Google Scholar
Marriott, S. & Lelliott, P. (1994) Clinical Practice Guidelines and their Development. Council Report CR34. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists.Google Scholar
National Heath Service Executive (1996) An Audit Pock for Monitoring the Care Programme Approach. Leeds: NHS Executive.Google Scholar
Royal College of Psychiatrists (1993) Consensus Statement on the Use of High Dose Antipsychotic Medication. Council Report CR26. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists.Google Scholar
Wing, J. K. (ed.) (1995) Measurement for Mental Health: Contributions from the College Research Unit. London: College Research Unit.Google Scholar
Wing, J. K. Rix, S. & Curtis, R. H. (1995) Protocol for Assessing Services for People with Severe Mental Illness. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.