|
M
ental
I llnessC oncernsA ll |
His last illness is so abrupt, and at the time he is so out of regular contact, that the services are unable to intervene directly and promptly. How is this ? His companion, has not been well prepared with the information required to call in, directly, the specialist services and responses if she is worried that he is becoming unwell. Despite the fact that A. and she are to some extent 'professionals'- he in social services for a long time and she as a counsellor and psychologist. Maybe people had assumed - they would 'know the ropes'. It was, however, known that when ill he became irascible and arrogated his own way. Perhaps that should have led to a fail-safe fall-back position being made known to his companion - who was really the only person likely to stay in contact with him closely enough to always be involved in any future relapse, or to report in any potential for relapse. But how would the professional team know that she would be there at a crucial time in a future. Nevertheless the Report does have reservations about that - the degree to which a 'potential'carer was not informed or taken into account- a common enough feature from the comments of many Inquiries. The Inquiry looks at the state of preparation of the mental illness provision. It notes the high degree of recognition in the Local Authority Social Services of the coordinated approach, and contrasts this with the poor preparation of the implementaion of the Care Programme Approach in the providing HealthCare Trust. Such a rapid fall into over excitability would test the reach of any service.But the reference to the Trust performance does confirm a value in studying these Reports. They do describe the attitude and implementation at workface delivery - in 1998 in this catchment area. Seven years after the Care Programme Approach should have been adopted into practice by the Authority commissioning it, and the Trust providing it, they had not succeeded.
|
E-mail reaction is welcome |