Search

Independent mental health advocacy was introduced in England to protect and promote the rights of people detained under mental health legislation. However, shortcomings in access and delivery to racialised people, raising concerns about equity, were identified by a review of the Mental Health Act. The development of culturally appropriate advocacy was recommended. While the term culturally appropriate may be taken for granted it is poorly defined and limited efforts have conceptualized it in relation to advocacy. Ideally, advocacy operates as a liberatory practice to challenge epistemic injustice, which people experiencing poor mental health are at acute risk of. This is amplified for people from racialised communities through systemic racism. This paper argues that advocacy and culturally appropriate practices are especially relevant to racialised people. It clarifies the importance of culture, race and racism to the role of advocacy, and understanding advocacy through the conceptual lens of epistemic injustice. A central aim of the paper is to draw on and appraise cultural competency models to develop a conceptual framing of cultural appropriate advocacy to promote epistemic justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inpatient psychiatric care is unpopular and expensive, and development and evaluation of alternatives is a long-standing policy and research priority around the world. In England, the three main models documented over the past fifty years (teams offering crisis assessment and treatment at home; acute day units; and residential crisis services in the community) have recently been augmented by several new service models. These are intended to enhance choice and flexibility within catchment area acute care systems, but remain largely undocumented in the research literature. We therefore aimed to describe the types and distribution of crisis care models across England through a national survey. Methods: We carried out comprehensive mapping of crisis resolution teams (CRTs) using previous surveys, websites and multiple official data sources. Managers of CRTs were invited to participate as key informants who were familiar with the provision and organisation of crisis care services within their catchment area. The survey could be completed online or via telephone interview with a researcher, and elicited details about types of crisis care delivered in the local catchment area. Results: We mapped a total of 200 adult CRTs and completed the survey with 184 (92%). Of the 200 mapped adult CRTs, there was a local (i.e., within the adult CRT catchment area) children and young persons CRT for 84 (42%), and an older adults CRT for 73 (37%). While all but one health region in England provided CRTs for working age adults, there was high variability regarding provision of all other community crisis service models and system configurations. Crisis cafes, street triage teams and separate crisis assessment services have all proliferated since a similar survey in 2016, while provision of acute day units has reduced. Conclusions: The composition of catchment area crisis systems varies greatly across England and popularity of models seems unrelated to strength of evidence. A group of emerging crisis care models with varying functions within service systems are increasingly prevalent: they have potential to offer greater choice and flexibility in managing crises, but an evidence base regarding impact on service user experiences and outcomes is yet to be established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Advocacy for people using health and social care services is widely promoted but its theoretical foundation is under-developed and its impact poorly conceptualised. This paper explores the liberatory potential of independent advocacy, using Fricker's concept of 'epistemic injustice' as a framework. People experiencing mental distress are particularly vulnerable to epistemic injustices as a consequence of deeply embedded social stigma resulting in a priori assumptions of irrationality and unreliability such that their knowledge is often discounted or downgraded. The mental health service user/survivor movement is at the forefront of validating personal experience and narrative to secure a different ontological and epistemological basis for mental distress. A foundational strand of this is advocacy to enable people to give voice to their experience. The case of independent mental health advocacy (IMHA) services under mental health legislation in England, provides an opportunity to critically examine whether advocacy can promote epistemic justice as a result of the legally sanctioned encounter between clinical assessment and subjective experience, pivoting on judgements about risk. This paper draws on empirical data from a national evaluation of IMHA services, which included 90 individual interviews with people subject to detention and three focus groups with mental health service users. Fricker's concept of epistemic injustice is used as a lens to investigate how this type of advocacy might mitigate forms of epistemic injustice, and thereby promote greater social justice in mental health. The concept of epistemic injustice provides a valuable theoretical basis for understanding the worth of advocacy in addressing testimonial injustice as well as its relative weakness in overcoming hermeneutical injustice. The challenge of independent advocacy to the dominant discourse within mental health is considered and questions raised about the place of advocacy in modern democratic mental health systems. Highlights • Analyses service user accounts of independent mental health advocacy (IMHA). • The concept of 'epistemic injustice' is used to identify if IMHA promotes equality. • The epistemic agency of those detained under MH legislation is compromised. • IMHA promotes testimonial justice but has limited impact on hermeneutic injustice. • Epistemic injustice is helpful in advancing more democratic mental health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inequalities in access to appropriate and acceptable healthcare contributes to a pattern of poorer health status, reduced life expectancy and greater dissatisfaction with healthcare amongst people from Black and minority ethnic communities (BME). Language acts as a further barrier to access. The development of bilingual advocacy fuses two key functions – interpretation and advocacy – to ensure that people from BME communities are able to have their healthcare needs met appropriately. This paper explores the development of bilingual advocacy in East London, which has a highly diverse population speaking over 100 different languages. It considers the development of the bilingual advocacy services by an NHS University Hospital Trust, the local experience of these services and the factors that have influenced their development. We employed the Delphi method amongst the four authors to examine the advocate-, service- or client-related challenges that face advocacy services; and the threats of these challenges to Trust-based advocacy and their implications to the service, client and advocate. Advocate-related challenges included status, esteem and remuneration of bilingual advocates in relation to other health professionals, as well as skills development, career progression, gender, capacity building and potential research contributions. Service-related challenges included work load, case mix, administration, commissioning processes/arrangements; entrepreneurial aspects of advocacy services; and mechanisms/potentials for cost recovery. Client-related challenges included continuity of advocacy; language requirements and advocacy needs of clients; and ways in which mobile populations influence planning and delivery of advocacy services for inner city hospitals. The paper concludes with identifying the implications for future development of bilingual advocacy services and the implications for their workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advocacy serves to promote the voice of service users, represent their interests and enable participation in decision-making. Given the context of increasing numbers of people detained under the Mental Health Act and heightened awareness of the potential for neglect and abuse in human services, statutory advocacy is an important safeguard supporting human rights and democratising the social relationships of care. This article reports findings from a national review of Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA) provision in England. A qualitative study used a two-stage design to define quality and assess the experience and impact of IMHA provision in eight study sites. A sample of 289 participants - 75 focus group participants and 214 individuals interviewed - including 90 people eligible for IMHA services, as well as advocates, a range of hospital and community-based mental health professionals, and commissioners. The research team included people with experience of compulsion. Findings indicate that the experience of compulsion can be profoundly disempowering, confirming the need for IMHA. However, access was highly variable and more problematic for people with specific needs relating to ethnicity, age and disability. Uptake of IMHA services was influenced by available resources, attitude and understanding of mental health professionals, as well as the organisation of IMHA provision. Access could be improved through a system of opt-out as opposed to opt-in. Service user satisfaction was most frequently reported in terms of positive experiences of the process of advocacy rather than tangible impacts on care and treatment under the Mental Health Act. IMHA services have the potential to significantly shift the dynamic so that service users have more of a voice in their care and treatment. However, a shift is needed from a narrow conception of statutory advocacy as safeguarding rights to one emphasising self-determination and participation in decisions about care and treatment., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)