Search

Sistema de Salut Mental; Comparació d'atenció a la salut mental Mental Health System; Mental health care comparison Sistema de Salud Mental; Comparación de atención a la salud mental Aims: There is a need of more quantitative standardised data to compare local Mental Health Systems (MHSs) across international jurisdictions. Problems related to terminological variability and commensurability in the evaluation of services hamper like-with-like comparisons and hinder the development of work in this area. This study was aimed to provide standard assessment and comparison of MHS in selected local areas in Europe, contributing to a better understanding of MHS and related allocation of resources at local level and to lessen the scarcity in standard service comparison in Europe. This study is part of the Seventh Framework programme REFINEMENT (Research on Financing Systems' Effect on the Quality of Mental Health Care in Europe) project. Methods: A total of eight study areas from European countries with different systems of care (Austria, England, Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Romania, Spain) were analysed using a standard open-access classification system (Description and Evaluation of Services for Long Term Care in Europe, DESDE-LTC). All publicly funded services universally accessible to adults (≥18 years) with a psychiatric disorder were coded. Care availability, diversity and capacity were compared across these eight local MHS. Results: The comparison of MHS revealed more community-oriented delivery systems in the areas of England (Hampshire) and Southern European countries (Verona - Italy and Girona - Spain). Community-oriented systems with a higher proportion of hospital care were identified in Austria (Industrieviertel) and Scandinavian countries (Sør-Trøndelag in Norway and Helsinki-Uusimaa in Finland), while Loiret (France) was considered as a predominantly hospital-based system. The MHS in Suceava (Romania) was still in transition to community care. Conclusions: There is a significant variation in care availability and capacity across MHS of local areas in Europe. This information is relevant for understanding the process of implementation of community-oriented mental health care in local areas. Standard comparison of care provision in local areas is important for context analysis and policy planning. The REFINEMENT project has received funding from the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme (7FP) and lies within the Specific Programme ‘Cooperation’ – Theme ‘Health’: HEALTH.2010.3.2–1: Financing systems’ effect on quality of health care. Duration: 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013. 7FP. Project number: 261459.

Introduction: Mental health care is a critical area to better understand integrated care and to pilot the different components of the integrated care model. However, there is an urgent need for better tools to compare and understand the context of integrated mental health care in Europe. Method: The REMAST tool (REFINEMENT MApping Services Tool) combines a series of standardised health service research instruments and geographical information systems (GIS) to develop local atlases of mental health care from the perspective of horizontal and vertical integrated care. It contains five main sections: (a) Population Data; (b) the Verona Socio-economic Status (SES) Index; (c) the Mental Health System Checklist; (d) the Mental Health Services Inventory using the DESDE-LTC instrument; and (e) Geographical Data. Expected results: The REMAST tool facilitates context analysis in mental health by providing the comparative rates of mental health service provision according to the availability of main types of care; care placement capacity; workforce capacity; and geographical accessibility to services in the local areas in eight study areas in Austria, England, Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Romania and Spain. Discussion: The outcomes of this project will facilitate cooperative work and knowledge transfer on mental health care to the different agencies involved in mental health planning and provision. This project would improve the information to users and society on the available resources for mental health care and system thinking at the local level by the different stakeholders. The techniques used in this project and the knowledge generated could eventually be transferred to the mapping of other fields of integrated care.

While there has been systematic research on the experiences of immigrant patients in mental health services within certain European countries, little research has explored the experiences of mental health professionals in the delivery of services to immigrants across Europe. This study sought to explore professionals’ experiences of delivering care to immigrants in districts densely populated with immigrants across Europe. Forty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with mental health care professionals working in 16 European countries. Professionals in each country were recruited from three areas with the highest proportion of immigrants. For the purpose of this study, immigrants were defined as first-generation immigrants born outside the country of current residence, including regular immigrants, irregular immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees and victims of human trafficking. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. The interviews highlighted specific challenges to treating immigrants in mental health services across all 16 countries including complications with diagnosis, difficulty in developing trust and increased risk of marginalisation. Although mental health service delivery varies between and within European countries, consistent challenges exist in the experiences of mental health professionals delivering services in communities with high proportions of immigrants. Improvements to practice should include training in reaching appropriate diagnoses, a focus on building trusting relationships and measures to counter marginalisation.

Background:Socially marginalised groups tend to have higher rates of mental disorders than the general populationand can be difficult to engage in health care. Providing mental health care for these groups represents a particularchallenge, and evidence on good practice is required. Thisstudy explored the experiences and views of experts in 14European countries regarding mental health care for six socially marginalised groups: long-term unemployed; street sexworkers; homeless; refugees/asylum seekers; irregular migrants and members of the travelling communities.Methods:Two highly deprived areas were selected in the capital cities of 14 countries, and experts were interviewed foreach of the six marginalised groups. Semi-structured interviews with case vignettes were conducted to exploreexperiences of good practice and analysed using thematic analysis.Results:In a total of 154 interviews, four components of good practice were identified across all six groups: a) establishingoutreach programmes to identify and engage with individuals with mental disorders; b) facilitating access to services thatprovide different aspects of health care, including mental health care, and thus reducing the need for further referrals; c)strengthening the collaboration and co-ordination betweendifferent services; and d) disseminating information onservices both to marginalised groups and to practitioners in the area.Conclusions:Experts across Europe hold similar views on what constitutes good practice in mental health care formarginalised groups. Care may be improved through better service organisation, coordination and information.

Background: Health services across Europe provide health care for migrant patients every day. However, little systematic research has explored the views and experiences of health care professionals in different European countries. The aim of this study was to assess the difficulties professionals experience in their service when providing such care and what they consider constitutes good practice to overcome these problems or limit their negative impact on the quality of care. Methods: Structures interviews with open questions and case vignettes were conducted with health care professional working in areas with high proportion of migrant population in 16 countries. In each country, professionals in nine primary care practices, three accident and emergency hospital departments, and three community mental health services (total sample = 240) were interviewed about their views and experiences in providing care for migrant patients. i.e. from first generation immigrant populations. Answers were analysed using thematic content analysis. Results: Eight types of problems and seven components of good practice were identified representing all statements in the interviews. The eight problems were: language barriers, difficulties in arranging care for migrants without health care coverage, social deprivation and traumatic experiences, lack of familiarity with the health care system, cultural differences, different understandings of illness and treatment, negative attitudes among staff and patients, and lack of access to medical history. The components of good practice to overcome these problems or limit their impact were: organisational flexibility with sufficient time and resources, good interpreting services, working with families and social services, cultural awareness of staff, educational programmes and information material for migrant positive and stable relationships with staff, and clear guidelines on the care entitlements of different migrant groups. Problems and good care components were similar across the three types of services. Conclusion: Health care professionals in different services experience similar difficulties when providing care to migrants. They also have relatively consistent views on what constitutes good practice. The degree to which these components already are part of routine practice varies. Implementing good practice requires sufficient resources and organisational flexibility, positive attitudes, training for staff and the provision of information.

Background: European Member States are facing a challenge to provide accessible and effective health care services for immigrants. It remains unclear how best to achieve this and what characterises good practice in increasingly multicultural societies across Europe. This study assessed the views and values of professionals working in different health care contexts and in different European countries as to what constitutes good practice in health care for immigrants. Methods: A total of 134 experts in 16 EU Member States participated in a three-round Delphi process. The experts represented four different fields: academia, Non-Governmental Organisations, policy-making and health care practice. For each country, the process aimed to produce a national consensus list of the most important factors characterising good practice in health care for migrants. Results: The scoring procedures resulted in 10 to 16 factors being identified as the most important for each participating country. All 186 factors were aggregated into 9 themes: (1) easy and equal access to health care, (2) empowerment of migrants, (3) culturally sensitive health care services, (4) quality of care, (5) patient/health care provider communication, (6) respect towards migrants, (7) networking in and outside health services, (8) targeted outreach activities, and (9) availability of data about specificities in migrant health care and prevention. Although local political debate, level of immigration and the nature of local health care systems influenced the selection and rating of factors within each country, there was a broad European consensus on most factors. Yet, discordance remained both within countries, e. g. on the need for prioritising cultural differences, and between countries, e. g. on the need for more consistent governance of health care services for immigrants. Conclusions: Experts across Europe asserted the right to culturally sensitive health care for all immigrants. There is a broad consensus among experts about the major principles of good practice that need to be implemented across Europe. However, there also is some disagreement both within and between countries on specific issues that require further research and debate.