Key features of an innovative sub-acute residential service for young people experiencing mental ill health.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies across international settings have highlighted a need to improve the appropriateness and continuity of services for young people experiencing mental ill health. This paper examines key features of a sub-acute youth mental health residential service model, Youth Prevention and Recovery Care (Y-PARC) service. Y-PARC provides up to 4 weeks care to 16 to 25 year-olds at risk of hospitalisation and to those transitioning out of hospital inpatient units. The research was conducted at one of three Y-PARCs located in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: This paper presents findings from analysis of two data sources collected during evaluation of a Y-PARC service in 2015-17. Routinely collected administrative data of Y-PARC residents (n = 288) were analysed and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 38 participants: a) former residents (n = 14); b) family members of group a) (n = 5); key stakeholders (n = 9); and, Y-PARC staff (n = 10 respondents in 3 group interviews). Analysis of the qualitative data was thematic and structured by the interview guide, which covered the key service aims. RESULTS: Consistent with the aims of the service, respondents described practice at Y-PARC that aligns with recovery-oriented care. Key features emphasised were: a safe and welcoming environment for residents and families; provision of person-centred care; promotion of autonomy and self-help; informal interactions with staff allowing for formation of naturalistic relationships; time spent with other young people with similar experiences; and, assurance upon exit that the 'door is always open.' High levels of satisfaction were reported. Outcomes described included: improved resilience; better understanding of mental health; the importance of seeking help; and, stronger connections to therapeutic services. Longer and multiple stays were associated with progressive and sustained change. Family members and stakeholders widely reported that the service fills a gap between community services and acute inpatient mental health hospital wards. Some challenging areas of practice identified included: integration of evidence-based psychosocial interventions; provision of care within a model that blends clinical and psychosocial support services; and, negotiation of family-inclusive practice. CONCLUSIONS: The Y-PARC service model shows promise with young people experiencing mental ill health, particularly in improving the range and availability of options across a spectrum of need.

Organizational culture, intersectoral collaboration and mental health care.

PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate whether and how organizational culture moderates the influence of other organizational capacities on the uptake of new mental health care roles by non-medical primary health and social care services. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Using a cross-sectional survey design, data were collected in 2004 from providers in 41 services in Victoria, Australia, recruited using purposeful sampling. Respondents within each service worked as a group to complete a structured interview that collected quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously. Five domains of organizational capacity were analyzed: leadership, moral support and participation; organizational culture; shared concepts, policies, processes and structures; access to resource support; and social model of health. A principal components analysis explored the structure of data about roles and capacities, and multiple regression analysis examined relationships between them. The unit of analysis was the service (n = 41). FINDINGS: Organizational culture was directly associated with involvement in two types of mental health care roles and moderated the influence of factors in the inter-organizational environment on role involvement. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Congruence between the values embodied in organizational culture, communicated in messages from the environment, and underlying particular mental health care activities may play a critical role in shaping the emergence of intersectoral working and the uptake of new roles. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study is the first to demonstrate the importance of organizational culture to intersectoral collaboration in health care, and one of very few to examine organizational culture as a predictor of performance, compared with other organizational-level factors, in a multivariate analysis. Theory is developed to explain the findings.

A discourse analysis on how service providers in non-medical primary health and social care services understand their roles in mental health care.

Enhancing collaboration between specialist mental health services, primary health care and social care services has been a key priority in mental health policy reform in many countries for about 20 years and remains so. Yet progress in terms of widespread implementation of demonstrably effective models of collaborative care has been slow. The views that different providers hold regarding the parameters of their roles, and the values that guide their approach to service delivery, are likely to exert profound effects on engagement with collaborative initiatives. Little research has explored these issues. In this study, discourse analysis from a structurational perspective was used to explore the views of providers in a diverse purposive sample of non-medical primary health and social care services in the state of Victoria, Australia regarding their mental health care roles. Four interconnected discourses were revealed as supporting role positions constructed in opposition to the putative role positions of specialist mental health services: an informal as opposed to a formal approach; a normalising as opposed to a pathologising approach; holistic social and emotional health and wellbeing, and an individualised or client-focused model of care as opposed to an illness-focused model. These oppositional role constructions may contribute to reluctance among providers in these sectors to engage with some agendas being promoted by specialist mental health services, through either reduced self-efficacy or active resistance to innovations that conflict with strongly held values. Greater awareness of, and critical reflection upon, contrasting role constructions, and the implications of these for practice may facilitate the design of more appropriate collaborative models and stronger commitment to their implementation.