Using the National Mental Health Service Planning Framework to inform integrated regional planning: a case study in Tasmania, Australia.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the application of a needs-based mental health service planning model in Tasmania, Australia to identify indicative directions for future service development that ensure the equitable provision of mental health services across the State. METHODS: The activity and capacity of Tasmania's 2018-19 mental health services were compared to estimates of required care by: (1) generating estimates of required care using the National Mental Health Service Planning Framework (NMHSPF); (2) collating administrative mental health services data; (3) aligning administrative data to the NMHSPF; and (4) comparing aligned administrative data and NMHSPF estimates to identify priority areas for service development. Findings were contextualised using information about service location, population demographics, and upcoming service development. RESULTS: Bed-based services capacity reached 85% of the NMHSPF estimate. However, access to certain bed types was inequitable across regional areas. Access to jurisdictional clinical ambulatory team-based services was lowest in the South, while overall full-time equivalent staff capacity reached 58% of the NMHSPF estimate. Access to Primary Health Tasmania (PHT) primary care services was highest in the North West; access to Medicare services was highest in the South. Collectively, activity across primary care (PHT, headspace and Medicare) reached 43% of the NMHSPF estimate. Over half of Community Managed Mental Health Support Services were state-wide services. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the application of a needs-based planning model for mental health services. Findings revealed service priority areas across Tasmania and highlight considerations for needs-based planning.

Using the National Mental Health Service Planning Framework to support an integrated approach to regional mental health planning in Queensland, Australia.

Regional integrated service planning has been identified as a key priority for improving the mental health system in Australia. The National Mental Health Service Planning Framework (NMHSPF) is an integrated planning tool that estimates the resources required to deliver the optimal mix of mental health services to a population. In 2016, Queensland Health commissioned a trial application of the NMHSPF for joint mental health planning between a Primary Health Network (PHN) and the corresponding state Hospital and Health Services (HHSs) in a regional area. The aim of this work was to collaborate with stakeholders from each organisation to collect available data on the delivery and resources of existing mental health services in the region and compare these to NMHSPF estimates to identify potential priority areas for planning. This paper provides mental health planners with an exemplar model for using the NMHSPF to support integrated planning at the regional level and describes the barriers, facilitators and key outcomes of this work.

Reducing aggressive behaviour and staff injuries: a multi-strategy approach.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a multi-strategy approach on the management of patient aggression and staff injury rates at a stand-alone mental health facility. METHODS: A multi-strategy aggression management program was developed and introduced over a 2-year period. The program had four components; staff education/training, a staff support program, risk assessment tools, and a computerised incident monitoring system. Aggressive incidents by patients, staff injuries due to patient aggression and compensation payments to staff for the 2-year period before implementation of the aggression management program were compared with the 3-year period following implementation of the program. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in the number of staff injuries reported in the 3-year period following the implementation of the aggression management program. Although the number of aggressive incidents reported did decrease over the study period, the decrease was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing acuity of the clients at the study facility, there was a significant decrease in staff injuries due to aggressive behaviour. The strategies implemented seem to offset the potential for violence. It is likely that the combined impact of the strategies is greater than the impact of individual strategies implemented consecutively.

Staff and patient perceptions of seclusion: has anything changed?

BACKGROUND: Seclusion continues to be widely used in the management of disturbed behaviour in hospitalized patients. While early research on the topic highlighted significant differences in staff and patient perceptions, there are few recent data to indicate if these differences still exist. AIM: This paper reports a study exploring the perceptions of both nursing staff and patients towards the reasons for seclusion; its effects; patients' feelings during seclusion; and possible changes to the practice. METHODS: Sixty nursing staff and 29 patients who had experienced seclusion at three inpatient units in Queensland, Australia completed Heyman's Attitudes to Seclusion Survey. RESULTS: The findings indicate that the two groups differed significantly on a number of the dimensions assessed. Nurses believed seclusion to be very necessary, not very punitive and a highly therapeutic practice that assisted patients to calm down and feel better. Patients, on the other hand, believed that seclusion was used frequently for minor disturbances and as a means of staff exerting power and control. Patients also believed that seclusion resulted in them feeling punished, and had little therapeutic value. CONCLUSION: The disagreement between staff and patients highlights the need for greater dialogue between these groups. While nursing staff require greater understanding of how patients feel about seclusion, patients require information on why and how seclusion is implemented.