I don't trust MH stats. My GP recently claimed to me that she had problems referring patients because there two routes - Comunity Treatrment team and Single Point of Access and she has had patients rejected by both on the grounds she should have referred the patient to the other route.
Seems in SLAM and Lambeth at least there are bureaucrats happy to do like this 1964 book of cod psychology to keep their diaries/wards clear - until an MP gets killed.
That book, while definitely 1960s, is definitely
not "cod psychology". Although I expect it gets used, and cited, by lots of cod psychologists. I've used ideas from that book, and Berne's Transactional Analysis theory, extensively in my client work, and am in no doubt that it can be very helpful in many cases.
I agree with you re stats - we put every barrier possible in the way of people seeking MH help or diagnosis, and I am absolutely sure that many, many people are dissuaded from seeking help, either from previous unsatisfactory encounters, or because the general difficulty of getting a referral, let alone any decent treatment, is so high..
Which is not to say that nobody gets access to treatment, or even successful treatment, but the bar is set very high. Case in point - I run a counselling service providing 6 sessions of solution-focused therapy for people with mild to moderate severity. The pathway to access is very flat, in that we will accept self-referrals (from patients registered with the surgery we operate from), but there is a HUGE gulf of coverage for anyone whose problems require longer-term therapy (non-existent), or who are looking for treatment for trauma, or significant illness: the local psychotherapy day service has a waiting list of somewhere between 18 months and 2 years.
Which is without factoring in the rapidly rising caseload that is emerging as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic </offtopic>