My Gp My Mental Healthcare Provider A Tertiary Primary Care Collaboration For Community Mental Healthcare

This book documents the journey of the Mental Health-General Practitioner (MH-GP) Partnership Programme in Singapore's Institute of Mental Health since its inception in 2003 and how it has developed over the years as a model of successful tertiary-primary care partnership in mental health.The programme provides an Asian perspective and showcases a successful collaboration of an integrated network between tertiary and primary care practitioners in the management of individuals with chronic major psychiatric disorders as well as individuals with minor psychiatric disorders.It can serve as a reference guide for agencies, both public and private in Singapore as well as agencies in the region who plans to develop similar partnerships between tertiary and primary care. This book may interest audiences from various fields, medical, allied health, administration and students in healthcare and education.

Ask for a definition of primary care, and you are likely to hear as many answers as there are health care professionals in your survey. Primary Care fills this gap with a detailed definition already adopted by professional organizations and praised at recent conferences. This volume makes recommendations for improving primary care, building its organization, financing, infrastructure, and knowledge baseâ€"as well as developing a way of thinking and acting for primary care clinicians. Are there enough primary care doctors? Are they merely gatekeepers? Is the traditional relationship between patient and doctor outmoded? The committee draws conclusions about these and other controversies in a comprehensive and up-to-date discussion that covers: The scope of primary care. Its philosophical underpinnings. Its value to the patient and the community. Its impact on cost, access, and quality. This volume discusses the needs of special populations, the role of the capitation method of payment, and more. Recommendations are offered for achieving a more multidisciplinary education for primary care clinicians. Research priorities are identified. Primary Care provides a forward-thinking view of primary care as it should be practiced in the new integrated health care delivery systemsâ€"important to health care clinicians and those who train and employ them, policymakers at all levels, health care managers, payers, and interested individuals.

The Institute of Medicine study Crossing the Quality Chasm (2001) recommended that an interdisciplinary summit be held to further reform of health professions education in order to enhance quality and patient safety. Health Professions Education: A Bridge to Quality is the follow up to that summit, held in June 2002, where 150 participants across disciplines and occupations developed ideas about how to integrate a core set of competencies into health professions education. These core competencies include patient-centered care, interdisciplinary teams, evidence-based practice, quality improvement, and informatics. This book recommends a mix of approaches to health education improvement, including those related to oversight processes, the training environment, research, public reporting, and leadership. Educators, administrators, and health professionals can use this book to help achieve an approach to education that better prepares clinicians to meet both the needs of patients and the requirements of a changing health care system.

Presents the justification and advantages of providing mental health services in primary care. Provides advice on how to implement and scale-up primary care for mental health, and describes how a range of health systems have successfully undertaken this transformation. Part 1 provides the context for understanding primary care for mental health within the broader health care system. Part 2 explains how to successfully integrate mental health into primary care and highlights 10 common principles which are central to this effort. It also presents 12 detailed case examples to illustrate how a range of health systems have undertaken this transformation. Annex 1 provides information about the skills and competencies that are required to effectively assess, diagnose, treat, support and refer people with mental disorders.

Social isolation and loneliness are serious yet underappreciated public health risks that affect a significant portion of the older adult population. Approximately one-quarter of community-dwelling Americans aged 65 and older are considered to be socially isolated, and a significant proportion of adults in the United States report feeling lonely. People who are 50 years of age or older are more likely to experience many of the risk factors that can cause or exacerbate social isolation or loneliness, such as living alone, the loss of family or friends, chronic illness, and sensory impairments. Over a life course, social isolation and loneliness may be episodic or chronic, depending upon an individual's circumstances and perceptions. A substantial body of evidence demonstrates that social isolation presents a major risk for premature mortality, comparable to other risk factors such as high blood pressure, smoking, or obesity. As older adults are particularly high-volume and high-frequency users of the health care system, there is an opportunity for health care professionals to identify, prevent, and mitigate the adverse health impacts of social isolation and loneliness in older adults. Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults summarizes the evidence base and explores how social isolation and loneliness affect health and quality of life in adults aged 50 and older, particularly among low income, underserved, and vulnerable populations. This report makes recommendations specifically for clinical settings of health care to identify those who suffer the resultant negative health impacts of social isolation and loneliness and target interventions to improve their social conditions. Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults considers clinical tools and methodologies, better education and training for the health care workforce, and dissemination and implementation that will be important for translating research into practice, especially as the evidence base for effective interventions continues to flourish.

"Each experience described here has its own history, as can be seen in each one of the chapters. Yet, all of them are part of a single reform process with shared historical roots and influences ... As proved by the experiences included in this book, a great deal can be learned from mental health reforms in Latin America and the Caribbean. On the one hand, each initiative developed truly original and innovative solutions for some of the problems usually encountered in the reform processes. Obviously, many of the innovative solutions can be applied in those countries that are at a similar stage of development as the Latin American and Caribbean countries where the reported experiences took place. However, many of these innovations also can be useful to any country interested in reforming its mental health services, regardless of the country's degree of development. I also believe that the reform of mental health services in Latin America and the Caribbean--given specific aspects such as the dynamic following the Caracas Declaration and the impact of international cooperation--help us to better understand the real importance of some factors, such as social and political aspects and international cooperation, in implementing mental health service reforms."--p. iv.

This book is a primer on Stepped Care 2.0. It is the first book in a series of three. This primer addresses the increased demand for mental health care by supporting stakeholders (help-seekers, providers, and policy-makers) to collaborate in enhancing care outcomes through work that is both more meaningful and sustainable. Our current mental health system is organized to offer highly intensive psychiatric and psychological care. While undoubtedly effective, demand far exceeds the supply for such specialized programming. Many people seeking to improve their mental health do not need psychiatric medication or sophisticated psychotherapy. A typical help seeker needs basic support. For knee pain, a nurse or physician might first recommend icing and resting the knee, working to achieve a healthy weight, and introducing low impact exercise before considering specialist care. Unfortunately, there is no parallel continuum of care for mental health and wellness. As a result, a person seeking the most basic support must line up and wait for the specialist along with those who may have very severe and/or complex needs. Why are there no lower intensity options? One reason is fear and stigma. A thorough assessment by a specialist is considered best practice. After all, what if we miss signs of suicide or potential harm to others? A reasonable question on the surface; however, the premise is flawed. First, the risk of suicide, or threat to others, for those already seeking care, is low. Second, our technical capacity to predict on these threats is virtually nil. Finally, assessment in our current culture of fear tends to focus more on the identification of deficits (as opposed to functional capacities), leading to over-prescription of expensive remedies and lost opportunities for autonomy and self-management. Despite little evidence linking assessment to treatment outcomes, and no evidence supporting our capacity to detect risk for harm, we persist with lengthy intake assessments and automatic specialist referrals that delay care. Before providers and policy makers can feel comfortable letting go of risk assessment, however, they need to understand the forces underlying the risk paradigm that dominates our society and restricts creative solutions for supporting those in need.