Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Mental healthcare in the UK - what went wrong?

existentialist

Tired and unemotional
In light of the revelation that the suspect for the recent murders in Nottingham was known to police, and had a "history of mental health issues".

There is a whole moral argument to be had around whether someone having mental health difficulties is or should be responsible for their actions, but I'm more concerned with the question of whether the responsibility is wider than that.

I have, for over 30 years, had involvement with the NHS mental health system, culminating in my working within it for the last 15 of them

What I have seen has been, at some level, quite shocking. While there's no doubt that it is largely staffed by caring individuals who genuinely signed up to try and make a difference, the system itself doesn't function (I was going to say "barely functions", but that's whitewashing it).

Primary mental health care, in my experience, across two health authorities and 30+ years, has been parlous. Gaining access to anything beyond 6 sessions of solution-focused CBT is well-nigh impossible, and even that intervention often has long waiting lists. Acute care is creaking at the seams, with dilapidated hospitals operating at over 100% capacity, and the treatment pattern for acute patients is, all too often, a revolving door wherein you cannot get admitted until you do something drastic (and a suicide attempt is often not sufficiently drastic), only to be discharged when someone else comes along who needs the bed more than you do.

I have heard countless tales of comprehensive and - on the face of it - reasonable care plans, which evaporate like Scotch mist the minute anyone tries to access them. Patients present at A&E, only to be shoved from pillar to post, often without any kind of result.

There are good interventions, and there are success stories. All too often, they seem to be associated with patients who have someone in their lives prepared to be "the squeaky wheel" and advocate for them. And heaven help any psychiatric patient who is less than completely co-operative - miss an appointment or stop taking your meds, and there's a good chance you'll just get discharged.

I think that - quite apart from being a civilised and decent thing to do - one of the reasons for having decent mental healthcare is so that society is not having to carry such a heavy burden in terms of people unable to function within it, not to mention the consequences on those who end up having to care for them in the absence of decent professional care, and who, all too often, end up themselves succumbing to "deux en fou" as that burden weighs ever more heavily on them, or, as I frequently see, collapse into their own crises following the bereavement of a loved one to suicide, or its slower cousins, drug abuse and alcoholism.

We patently don't do this. A staggering proportion of homeless people have mental health problems, and are even less likely to be able to access the system. Even for people with moderate to acute mental health difficulties, their lives are often chaotic, and do not lend themselves well to getting across town to the mental health unit at the appointed time. And yet, if they don't show (or, as happened recently, dropped dead in their flat, not to be found for 2 years), nobody follows it up.

And we wonder why things like the rampage in Nottingham happen? Is it not possible that, had that man received appropriate help for his condition, that 3 people would still be alive today, and a community would not have been scarred by the terror of that night?

But it's not just about the headline cases. Even if the occasional suicide makes the news, most don't, and for each of them there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of people languishing in misery, unable to access the help they need to be able to start clawing their way back to living some kind of decent life.

Much of mental illness is curable. But it takes commitment on the part of the services supposedly there to do that. We can't expect the patient to make all the running, including having to fight even to access a service in a way which all-too-often resembles the script of a Kafka novel. It is clear to me that the system, as it stands, is grievously and chronically under-resourced, and nobody really seems to think that is all that much of a problem, least of all this shower of clowns who currently govern us.

Or maybe I've got it all wrong, and these are just the maunderings of some bleeding heart liberal who's just making excuses for a bunch of lead-swingers who should just make like a pair of curtains and pull themselves together.
 
Deserves a much longer reply but IMO/E "care in the community" was always a deliberately underfunded ill-thought out disaster of a policy.

And today "multi-agency approaches" are a tick box exercise.

This bit is bang on;

We can't expect the patient to make all the running, including having to fight even to access a service in a way which all-too-often resembles the script of a Kafka novel. It is clear to me that the system, as it stands, is grievously and chronically under-resourced, and nobody really seems to think that is all that much of a problem,
 
Money.

The system is chronically underfunded and always has been. Even in the pre-austerity days when funding for care services was a thing MH was a poor cousin to other social care. It's always fallen somewhere between council run social care and the NHS and funding decisions often lead to arguments over who will pay while the people who need help fall between the cracks and don't get the support they desperately need. And since austerity MH services are so cut back, the people working at them so overworked that they don't have the time or the ability to do what they should be doing. The funding crisis has gone beyond breaking point and led to a broken system. CAMHS won't even engage with suicidal children until they've attempted suicide. I met someone with a CAMHS worker the other week and thought fucking hell, they must be in a serious situation (they were :( ).

Supporting people with MH difficulties takes time, care and understanding. It's a demanding specialist role that needs the space and resources to provide the personalised support that people with MH issues need. It can't be rushed or skimped on and that is all that is available.

People who have problems with their mental health should get the support they need because it’s a health problem like a broken leg or cancer and only the shittiest right wingers would argue help with those shouldn't be available to everyone. But there's a prejudice about mental health. MH only makes it into the news when things go really wrong, creating an impression of MH = mad knifemen, which is only the tip of a very big iceburg. Otherwise people only think about it when they or people they care about are affected and its only then that it becomes apparent that MH support in the UK barely exists at all.
 
It is absolutely underappreciated and underpublicised how much the system isn't just fucked in the same way as a lot of the NHS is - creaking along mostly but with failures and increasingly can't cope with stresses - and just kind of doesn't exist. Except by anyone who has actually had contact with it obviously. There's talk about CAMH sometimes in the media, and that is absolutely super important of course, but it never seems to go much further to say "actually the whole thing isn't working".

It certainly takes an ability to understand and negotiate bureaucracy and fight your corner to get anything beyond a prescription for ADs - I did manage to get some psychotherapy on the NHS a few years ago which is kind of black swan stuff but that was after literally years of relentlessly pushing and on more than one occasion threatening complaints. And I am reasonably good with bureaucracies and also know a bunch of medics who could help me with how things work. And would not do it again.
 
Deserves a much longer reply but IMO/E "care in the community" was always a deliberately underfunded ill-thought out disaster of a policy.

And today "multi-agency approaches" are a tick box exercise.

This bit is bang on;
Was going to post I think it started with the implementation of 'care in the community' for sure. I don't think MH was ever properly funded except in the very beginning when asylums were built.

Some were on the outskirts of Glasgow with farms managed by the more physically abled patients as part of their care, but over time the services offered were undermined and removed and there is no doubt that some people were committed to asylums that should not have been, for example young women who became pregnant were sometimes 'put away' because of societal shame more than anything. And these women were condemned for the most part to become institutionalised and abandoned.

And I think that that shame around mental health persists. I have anxiety, in the past I have suicidal ideation and other than medication no help has ever been offered. And quite honestly I don't even know if it's there to be given - I've had enough issues trying to access help for physical health problems, god only knows how hard it would be to access mental health services even though my GP is sympathetic.
 
Money again. When the Tories stated they were moving to a 'care in the community' approach they cited Trieste as a model.


But they didn't fund it adequately (and a lot of the old 'bins' were sold off to property developers...natch) and the negative effects that neoliberalism had on mental health generally.

Then they had a general approach of fragmenting the NHS (divide to conquer, etc) which created problems in joined up healthcare delivery and information sharing between relevant parties.

Mental health can obviously be delivered in an effective manner but when the government of the day hates the institution tasked with delivering it makes things more difficult.

So I put the blame on right wing intentional political decisions and the solution to be reversing them. Trieste was a great idea if it was funded and delivered properly.
 
Money again. When the Tories stated they were moving to a 'care in the community' approach they cited Trieste as a model.


But they didn't fund it adequately (and a lot of the old 'bins' were sold off to property developers...natch) and the negative effects that neoliberalism had on mental health generally.

Then they had a general approach of fragmenting the NHS (divide to conquer, etc) which created problems in joined up healthcare delivery and information sharing between relevant parties.

Mental health can obviously be delivered in an effective manner but when the government of the day hates the institution tasked with delivering it makes things more difficult.

So I put the blame on right wing intentional political decisions and the solution to be reversing them. Trieste was a great idea if it was funded and delivered properly.
Yes, some of the old Sites in the Glasgow area have been sold off to developers, there's one large one at Woodside to the east of Glasgow, for example. But others like the original Gartnaval Asylum building still stands sentinel over the surrounding area, although there's now several modern buildings surrounding it for inpatient services.

Others like the Thomas Clouston clinic in Edinburgh (a revolutionary care model in its day, although tiered care was still available - the wealthy could have their own individual pavillion with private nurses and servants, the less well off were treated in groups iirc) is now Napier University's Craighouse campus.

Some sites have simply been abandoned like Lennoxtown or Hartwood.
 
Money. Shut down the old asylums (which obviously had major issues) sell them and their often lovely edge of city / town grounds on the cheap to developer donors.

Don’t invest properly in the service, rely instead on chronically understaffed teams of people prepared to work for low wages and lean on their good will to prop up a sinking system.

Use the police to paper over the cracks, on the basis of a half day PowerPoint ( if the cops were lucky) and rely on their compassion most of the time* . Stuff people into police cells, that couldn’t be worse places for people in crisis if you set out to design them, tying up cops in towns where there are normally more people working in the McDonalds restaurants than cops on duty i.e. all towns). But don’t measure or find the police for this whilst telling them there role ‘is to cut crime, nothing more nothing less’ and get rid of one in five of them.

Cast people suffering from neurosis as workshy scroungers and those living with psychosis as all violent monsters, especially if they are black or Asian, to prop up the blue rinse vote through hate and fear.

It’s a fucking disgrace . But you have only got to look at the States to see it could be, and almost certainly will get, a whole lot worse.

But yeah, money or the lack of it mostly.






( *yeah I know each and every rozzer in what is unarguably absolutely the worst police force in the entire world is a racist thick as pig shit violence loving coward who spends their time implementing detailed and multi level conspiracies… but that’s a whole other thread)
 
Money. Shut down the old asylums (which obviously had major issues) sell them and their often lovely edge of city / town grounds on the cheap to developer donors.

Don’t invest properly in the service, rely instead on chronically understaffed teams of people prepared to work for low wages and lean on their good will to prop up a sinking system.

Use the police to paper over the cracks, on the basis of a half day PowerPoint ( if the cops were lucky) and rely on their compassion most of the time* . Stuff people into police cells, that couldn’t be worse places for people in crisis if you set out to design them, tying up cops in towns where there are normally more people working in the McDonalds restaurants than cops on duty ) or all towns). But don’t measure or find the police for this.

Cast people suffering from neurosis as workshy scroungers and those living with psychosis as all violent monsters, especially if they are black or Asian, to prop up the blue rinse vote through hate and fear.

It’s a fucking disgrace . But you have only got to look at the States to see it could be, and almost certainly will get, a whole lot worse.

But yeah, money or the lack of it mostly.






( *yeah I know each and every rozzer in what is unarguably absolutely the worst police force in the entire world is a racist thick as pig shit violence loving coward who spends their time implementing detailed and multi level conspiracies… but that’s a whole other thread)
I don't drive so when I'm having a city break I tend to walk or use public transport. When I was in Portland and Seattle (both at more of the progressive end of the spectrum) I often saw people in conspicuous states of psychosis, tent cities in underpasses, rampant open IV drug use and you're right. It's all coming to the UK.

Vancouver (where i'm currently based) has all kinds of problems too ( Downtown Eastside - Wikipedia (where a lot of my patients are from)) but nothing like i saw across the border.
 
I don't drive so when I'm having a city break I tend to walk or use public transport. When I was in Portland and Seattle (both at more of the progressive end of the spectrum) I often saw people in conspicuous states of psychosis, tent cities in underpasses, rampant open IV drug use and you're right. It's all coming to the UK.

Vancouver (where i'm currently based) has all kinds of problems too ( Downtown Eastside - Wikipedia (where a lot of my patients are from)) but nothing like i saw across the border.

Back in the before times I spent some time on the west coast and the huge amount of people living with completely untreated psychosis in public places was shocking. I saw people in conditions that I had only ever seen in treatment facilities , or police stations, in the UK.

But yes starting to see it here now.
 
I don't drive so when I'm having a city break I tend to walk or use public transport. When I was in Portland and Seattle (both at more of the progressive end of the spectrum) I often saw people in conspicuous states of psychosis, tent cities in underpasses, rampant open IV drug use and you're right. It's all coming to the UK.

Vancouver (where i'm currently based) has all kinds of problems too ( Downtown Eastside - Wikipedia (where a lot of my patients are from)) but nothing like i saw across the border.

Back in the before times I spent some time on the west coast and the huge amount of people living with completely untreated psychosis in public places was shocking. I saw people in conditions that I had only ever seen in treatment facilities , or police stations, in the UK.

But yes starting to see it here now.

In 2015 I did a road trip from Denver to Vancouver (where you are I think Ming ) and stopped in Portland and Seattle en route and recognise what you describe. Stayed in Downtown Eastside (at the Patricia) and the surrounding area was a grim sight.

Spoke to some locals in a bar who though clearly of a liberal persuasion basically told me to ignore them and imagine they were benign zombies who would do you no harm.
 
Back in the before times I spent some time on the west coast and the huge amount of people living with completely untreated psychosis in public places was shocking. I saw people in conditions that I had only ever seen in treatment facilities , or police stations, in the UK.

But yes starting to see it here now.
Screaming at traffic at T junctions i saw a lot of. People sleeping on cardboard and you don't know if they're alive or dead. An ex-patient who i knew from work died of heart failure in the nearest Tim Hortons to my hospital. The homeless go in there to sleep and stay warm. They didn't notice he'd passed away for a few hours.

I trace a lot of these kinds of events to 1979/80 when things in the UK, USA and Canada went to shit when Friedman, Rand, Hayek and their minions of hell became ascendant.
 
In 2015 I did a road trip from Denver to Vancouver (where you are I think Ming ) and stopped in Portland and Seattle en route and recognise what you describe. Stayed in Downtown Eastside (at the Patricia) and the surrounding area was a grim sight.

Spoke to some locals in a bar who though clearly of a liberal persuasion basically told me to ignore them and imagine they were benign zombies who would do you no harm.
The DTES is grim but I don't feel unsafe there. Most of the people there are trodden down victims.
 
No, I didn’t either. But equally I didn’t think that I wanted to stay there if I visited again
Oh totally agree. A lot of people choose to be homeless (in a tent in Stanley park) than stay in one of the SROs (single room occupancy) in East Hastings/DTES.

ETA: Actually that was the same in Liverpool where i trained. Some of the hostels were very scary places.
 
Underfunding of mental health services and care in the community have both screwed up MH provision.

When I was ill in 2004 I was very ill, I was psychotic. When I was picked up by the police there was no doubt that I was a danger to myself so they had no option but to find a place for me in a hospital. The most local place near me was full so they drove me to a hospital about an hour away and after holding me in a room for what seemed like hours they organised a room for me and I was admitted.

I was there for a couple of weeks until a space became available in a more local to me hospital and I was transferred there where I stayed for another 4-6 weeks.

They were good and I made a recovery with the help of meds enough so that I went through their gradual release program until I was eventually able to return home.

In 2006 I was ill again. We had been reducing my meds because I was over medicated and eventually we reduced them to the extent that I had another episode. I was known to the CMHT and they immediately found me a bed in the local place where we put the meds back up one click and I recovered.

The mental health system did work for me, even stretched as it was. I got the treatment I needed for which I was grateful.

The appeals system was interesting. You can request a mental health review tribunal and also you can request a hospital managers review. In 2004 I requested a mental health review tribunal which took place quite quickly while I was still very ill and obviously not in any condition to be released.

But in 2006 when I also requested a mental health review tribunal and when it came about I was already much better. I had a good lawyer also and although the hospital wanted to retain me longer under section, the mental health review tribunal found in my favour and I was released from section and permitted to return home. The hospital staff didn't like being overruled and arranged that the local crisis team visited me at home for a further week or two.

So the system worked for me, back in 2004 - 2006.

Since then I have learnt that the mental health hospital nearest to me which I used twice and was always full - has been closed and changed into an old peoples facility.

This seems crazy to me as its services for mental health were over subscribed. But not being involved in local provision I don't know what has been arranged in its place and can't really comment.
 
How sad:

A "kind, generous" well-known member of Cardiff's music scene took his own life after police missed an opportunity to detain him for safeguarding, an inquest jury has concluded. Leighton Dickens, 39, from Cardiff, was left outside A&E and told to go home without police supervision after his partner Rhiannon Williams phoned the police with concerns over his mental health ..."

Police left man in mental health 'crisis' outside A&E hours before he took his life


3_BSR_020923_Leighton.jpg


(Source: The family of The Late Leighton Dickens)

The Late Leighton Dickens



South-Wales-Police-1.jpg

"We note the outcome of the inquest and acknowledge the jury’s conclusion that there was a missed opportunity in this case to detain Mr Dickens pending a mental health assessment. The police’s powers to detain a person lawfully for mental health assessment are limited and the decision for officers on whether to detain someone under the Mental Health Act 1983 presents complicated, nuanced, legal and factual considerations."
 
Deserves a much longer reply but IMO/E "care in the community" was always a deliberately underfunded ill-thought out disaster of a policy.

And today "multi-agency approaches" are a tick box exercise.

This bit is bang on;
agree totally

care in the community has been conspicuously underfunded, abusive practises by Healthcare 'Professionals' in mental health goes unchecked

the only good thing about care in the community was it finally got rid of the county pauper lunatic asylums
 
How sad:



Police left man in mental health 'crisis' outside A&E hours before he took his life


3_BSR_020923_Leighton.jpg


(Source: The family of The Late Leighton Dickens)

The Late Leighton Dickens


South-Wales-Police-1.jpg

"We note the outcome of the inquest and acknowledge the jury’s conclusion that there was a missed opportunity in this case to detain Mr Dickens pending a mental health assessment. The police’s powers to detain a person lawfully for mental health assessment are limited and the decision for officers on whether to detain someone under the Mental Health Act 1983 presents complicated, nuanced, legal and factual considerations."
S136 is a bad part of the MHA

it places on the only true emergency power into the hands of people perhaps worst placed to use it i.e. Police officers; yet Paramedics, Nurses and even Drs have no comparable power as 5(2), 5(3) and 5(4) only apply to hospital inpatients
 
Last edited:
Maybe we need a new thread for this, but...

We have a change of government. I don't want to over-egg this, because I have watched (and, to some extent, experienced) the stagnation and decline in mental healthcare over a period of 40 years, and that wasn't all Tories.

But maybe - just maybe - this lot could decide to realise what the future cost to society the present impact of mental health problems represents, and they might think the investment worth it.

What would that look like?

I'll reply to this post with a few of mine, but I'd be curious to know the views of others.
 
Maybe we need a new thread for this, but...

We have a change of government. I don't want to over-egg this, because I have watched (and, to some extent, experienced) the stagnation and decline in mental healthcare over a period of 40 years, and that wasn't all Tories.

But maybe - just maybe - this lot could decide to realise what the future cost to society the present impact of mental health problems represents, and they might think the investment worth it.

What would that look like?

I'll reply to this post with a few of mine, but I'd be curious to know the views of others.
So, yeah, right.

Completely "flat path" access to mental health support. By which I mean that someone who is having mental health difficulties - or thinks they might be - can walk into a GP surgery or other venue, and either find themselves in front of, or be referred for an appointment with, someone who can address the MH stuff quickly. We have a ludicrous situation at the moment, where you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to access basic, and often scant, support. All we're doing is kicking the can down the road and giving ourselves more problems to deal with later.

A formal broadening of the scope of therapies. The NHS tends to make the "no brainer" decision to go for evidence-based therapies, by default. Sure, other approaches do get a look in, but they are usually secondary, and harder to access. I don't have any problem with CBT and those of that ilk (though don't get me on manualised therapies delivered by ill-trained staff), but it's an approach which only works for a particular kind of client, and/or presentation. And, too often, it's the only option available.

Better aftercare. The current mental health system seems to prize discharge above all else. They'll discharge you as a reward for successfully overcoming this particular episode (or, at least, appearing to). They'll discharge you as a punishment if you miss appointments, or if you demonstrate, ahem, non-compliant behaviour. Their metrics and standards are based around being able to get their patients back out through the door. The reality is that many people with mental health problems can overcome the worst of it - most of the time - and can lead fulfilling lives, but they may well need support along the way. As things stand, that probably means going back to the GP and getting re-referred in, with all the implications of failure that might bring.

More mental health training for general staff. Some younger GPs are getting training in mental health matters, now, but in my experience, it was often something they had proactively opted to do. Really, recognising the prevalence of mental health difficulties, and their relevance to an awful lot of organic illness, it's a bit mad that GPs don't have a lot more training and experience in working with these areas. That said, some GPs do a fabulous job, but it can be a bit of a lottery.

And it's not just GPs. Pretty much everyone who is on the front line of medical care is going to encounter significant numbers of people experiencing mental health difficulties. I know, from the surgery I worked in, that someone having a crisis was an "emergency" situation - there would not usually be someone there who could help. Basic MH skills training wouldn't be hard to implement.


As far as I am concerned, the bottom line is...people can recover from mental illness. When they do, they lead happier lives (if you want to be capitalistic about it, they lead more productive lives). They cost the healthcare system less (estimates of a psychological component to a presentation to GP with some perceived organic illness vary between 30-70%) if their need for help is mental health-driven. In more extreme cases, there is an impact on crime levels.

Harder to put a price on is quality of life, not just for them, but their families, friends, and everyone who cares for them.

I must go and have a word with my MP. Actually, she's Plaid. We'll go next door to Pembrokeshire and talk to him.
 
They won't do a fucking thing.
I fear that you might be right. But I think it might be interesting to see if enough optimism around the possibility that they might could be generated, so that some consequence of their failure might be obvious.

In the grand scheme of things, it'd make a great long-term investment in our future. :D
 
I said earlier in this thread, back a while ago, that it wasn't generally appreciated that there simply wasn't any NHS mental health provision any more. That has not changed I would say. So there isn't going to be a lot of expectation on the new Labour government to fix that.
 
I think politicians generally figure mental health and sexual health are safe sectors for them to ignore/subject to cuts, because there are still taboos, few people are willing to be the poster child for mental illness or STIs.

And there's still a sense that many people with poor mental health are just malingerers who just need to pull their socks up.

I'm really not hopeful that Starmer's government is going to tackle the underfunding and put more resources into mental health services.

I mean, ffs, Starmer couldn't/wouldn't even commit to removing the two child cap on child benefit to help lift children out of poverty (when we've got kids in this country suffering from malnutrition and scurvy), if he's not going to help hungry children, he's not going to help adults (and children and young people) access mental health treatments and medication in a timely manner.
 
It should also be recognised that if by some miracle there did end up being some level of effective NHS mental health care, who out of all the people who've spent years trying to negotiate what there was, and quite often come to the conclusion that they're better off not engaging at all (as it was simply worse for them to do so) is going to appreciate that? How is it that they would be told and convinced if that happened? and I'm not sure would happen anyway
 
Back
Top Bottom