Eating disorders: the big issue

A new report from the King’s Fund entitled Bringing Together Physical and Mental Health: a New Frontier for Integrated Care not only reviews the case for integration, but also provides real practical examples of how it has been achieved. Importantly, the report describes both the barriers to and facilitators of its successful implementation on the basis of interviews of those involved. The barriers are many and not all will be overcome simply by colocation of services (colocation is not integration). They include deeply ingrained cultural factors in the workforce that reinforce division and the separate organisational and payment systems for physical and mental health care. Key facilitators to achievement of integration include strong leadership for change at both clinical and board level and a willingness to innovate in the relevant organisations. Policy developments in various countries, including the new models of care introduced by the National Health Service Five Year Forward View in England and the growth of accountable care organisations in the USA have the exciting potential to facilitate integration of physical and mental health care. However, this integration will only happen if psychiatrists and other professionals now actively engage with these developments and use them as opportunities to advocate for and lead new forms of collaborative or even integrated working. The idea of so-called parity of esteem for patients’ mental and physical health care, which has been successfully championed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, has achieved considerable influence. Indeed, in England, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 created a new legal responsibility for the National Health Service to deliver parity of esteem between physical and mental health, something that the Government has pledged to achieve by 2020. However, interpretations of parity of esteem vary. One interpretation is simply for existing mental health services to be as well funded and provide as good care as existing physical health services. Although this interpretation is an important ambition, the report from the King’s Fund7 raises sights much higher than this ambition to a vision in which mental health care is not only as good as physical care is, but is also delivered as part of all health and care services. This challenge should be addressed and the opportunity seized if we are to repair the harm caused by 100 years of separation.