Search

Objective: In New Zealand and Australia, a renewed emphasis on equity and efficiency in the provision of mental health care has seen outcomes-focused, culturally appropriate clinical practice become essential within mental health services. Ascertaining the degree to which quality improvement and monitoring systems are enhancing professional practice and patient outcomes, however, is hindered by the difficulty of measuring the process of quality care delivery. Method: This paper argues that it is the process of care delivery (i.e. what clinicians do to, and for, patients) that is critical to the effectiveness of treatment and the degree to which treatment either inhibits or promotes an improvement in mental health recovery. Identification of the underlying causes of poor achievement of process factors is likely to positively impact on things such as readmission rates, shared care initiatives, and ultimately patient recovery. Such attention could be the difference between low-quality service provision and a high-quality service provision with positive recovery outcomes for patients. Results: Ascertaining the degree to which quality improvement and monitoring systems are enhancing professional practice and patient outcomes for indigenous people, however, is hindered by the difficulty of measuring such concepts. Australia has indeed embraced 'culturally appropriate' practice in recent years, but this appears to be piecemeal when compared with New Zealand. Certainly, there are inconsistent and variable approaches to cultural practices with indigenous people when comparing the two countries. Conclusions: Using evidence from a bicultural mental health nursing study that developed and validated generic and Maori-specific (indigenous) clinical indicators for mental health nursing standards of practice in New Zealand, it is argued that the process of care delivery is equally as important as outcome measures when ascertaining the effectiveness of nursing care. Second, this paper contends that accurate process measures must be culturally responsive to indigenous and other ethnic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate the 12 month and lifetime use of health services for mental health problems. Method: A nationwide face-to-face household survey carried out in 2003–2004. A fully structured diagnostic interview, the World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI 3.0) was used. There were 12 992 completed interviews from participants aged 16 years and over. The overall response rate was 73.3%. In this paper, the outcomes reported are 12 month and lifetime health service use for mental health and substance use problems. Results: Of the population, 13.4% had a visit for a mental health reason in the 12 months before interview. Of all 12 month cases of mental disorder, 38.9% had a mental health visit to a health or non-health-care provider in the past 12 months. Of these 12 month cases, 16.4% had contact with a mental health specialist, 28.3% with a general medical provider, 4.8% within the human services sector and 6.9% with a complementary or alternative medicine practitioner. Most people with lifetime disorders eventually made contact if their disorder continued. However, the percentages seeking help at the age of onset were small for most disorders and several disorders had large percentages who never sought help. The median duration of delay until contact varies from 1 year for major depressive disorder to 38 years for specific phobias. Conclusions: A significant unmet need for treatment for people with mental disorder exists in the New Zealand community, as in other comparable countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine the likely utility of the recently published Australian and New Zealand clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of depression.The guidelines are critiqued for their intrinsic logic and their success in extracting potentially valid and useful management templates.This paper provides examples of key limitations to many specific interpretations and conclusions.It is argued that these guidelines are far less precise and informative for clinical practice than they appear and with a disturbing lack of rigour for a document promulgated by a professional college. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]