Treatment Involving Patient’s Family Cuts Mental Health Hospital Admissions, Study Finds

This study involving family and friends situation would have to be highly specific. Who does this apply to? What was it about these particular stories that enabled such trustworthy trust?

OFTEN:
Family, relatives, friends, neighbours, can all be as dangerous if not more so, than the psych. drugs and treatments and prescribers. Their versions of events are relayed without regard or concern for the person they are so freely and willingly talking about, without that person being present and included.

If in crisis situations doctors, nurses, practitioners, registrars, and qualified mental psych. doctors are relying on someone else’s input to guide their decision-making, that is a very scary scenario. Unless it is about accurate medical history – such as diabetes, thyroid, kidney failure, known allergies, recent physical illness, and the like.

From a basic understanding point of view, there is no reason to seek any input, other than what can be observed in the here and now that presents right there in front of them. Also from a basic understanding point of view, a thoughtfully calibrated dose of a carefully chosen benzodiazepine (plenty of precedence and research available) as an initial course of action and treatment seems to be something that “works”.

Outsider (any) inputs lead treatments astray.

Often in crisis situations, fully qualified psych. doctors are not present and are not available. If a psych. Registrar is called to the scene (public hospital setting), they may or may not come up with the best available option – it will depend on their training, their supervisor, and who the senior psychiatrist is on call.

A bit of benzo. would help with a lack of sleep, that turned into an admission and psych. treatments that needn’t have been.

Report comment

Read the news article: it features one person, a doctor, receiving privileged resources over a five year period (to date). It claims to keep people out of inpatient beds.

Maybe inpatient beds are being saved for people who’s procedures bring in more money for the facility and the service provider?

Inpatient Beds are like real estate. While they sit empty, there are minimal costs involved. When they are occupied, it is best financial practice to have a high financial yield. Unless the psychiatric patient is privately insured, and signs that financial cover access over to the public facility, it is highly unlikely that an inpatient bed will be occupied by someone who needs mental issues attention.

This sounds like a concept that uses resources, while not bringing any real time financial gains. Possibly longer term, the individual person on the receiving end of such care, might benefit; however 5 years is a really long time for a public service to support a person who is struggling and or in distress.

The current given available therapies such as CBT, run for one to two months on a weekly basis (often presented by unsupervised trainees = lower costs); psychology services are funded and subsidised for 6 up to an additional 4 sessions per annum.

Open dialogue relies on consistency and participation of the nominated people. Not everyone wants their friends and neighbours to know about private and confidential information.

“Dr Russell Razzaque, a consultant psychiatrist and the clinical lead on the trial, said this could have significant implications for how the NHS runs psychiatric care.

“There’s a substantial reduction in cost because you’re not spending all the money on inpatient beds, which are the most expensive part of the system,” he said.”

Report comment