Jack Nicholsons finest moment?

Well was it in Easy Rider, or in "The Shining" (who will forget his cry of Here's Johnny)? I think for many people his most exciting or indeed mercurial performance was in the movie adaption of "One flew over the Cuckoo's nest". He plays the part of one Randle McMurphy sent to an institution for evaluation. The rest is well known and I won't repeat it here. Suffice to say the adaption of Ken Keseys book (also a top read) won many plaudits and awards.
Its influence has been vast and for many that depiction of 1950's institutional care has become synonymous with mental health care "full stop". I was once interviewed for a place on a Masters Degree in mental health and the first question to me (as a nurse in particular) was "Why do you think Nurse Rachet behaved as she did"?
I watched the film (and enjoyed it) and I guess filtered it through a nurses values and culture. I saw clear brutality of a subtle and insiduous nature on behalf of Nurse Rachet. and also the actions of the male orderlies (am I right in remembering one using a cosh?), were really grim. They seemed to be not only institutionalised but also willing to engage in pretty forceful and dehumanising actions.
The patients themselves, well again pure drama and a good drama to, but a more sensationalist collection of stereotypes you couldn't hope to find. Does it have merits though? I guess it does, its pretty realistic in some senses, Its critique of psycho-surgery to ameliorate difficult behaviour is pretty accurate and the numbing routine of a neat and tidy ward is captured well. Perhaps this was because it was filmed in an actual hospital location.
There's much to commend the film as drama, my problem comes when its the main point of reference for peoples understanding of mental health services today.
Don't get me started on the infamous "Titicut follies" whatever you do. Well perhaps another time!

Can someone explain this to me?

Interesting piece in the propoganda war that now surrounds the NHS Bill, you know what I mean , all of a sudden research and reports are produced that support a certain view. All published under the guise of  news. I was really fascinated by this piece in the online Guardian today. It reports that a collection of NHS directors are arguing the elevation of the private commercial earning ceiling to 49% will benefit NHS patients. they say......
"Examples of these benefits include developing treatment innovations and specialisms - such as complex paediatric treatment, robotic surgery, and employer-funded mental health treatment - and mean that trusts will be able to provide services on the NHS that can no longer be commissioned or are now rationed, including IVF."
Now my eye was drawn to the term "employer funded mental health treatment". What could that treatment be I wonder. I assume its psychological therapies that are currently delivered by Employer Assistance Programmes and which engage with independent contractors. Now this could be an absolute fillip to the psychology services couldn't it? They could recruit more and more psychologists and their assistants and  deliver an IAPT style programme for the employers who would pay well for such a service.
But hang on Clin Psychs are a very small group and the low and high intensity workers are being trained to provide IAPT, and in particualr we are now working on a plans to develop that service into greater provision to people with a label of Serious Mental Illness, and indeed Young people.
Could there be a potential diversion of resources here? Could we see a client group neglected because there is more revenue (and less hassle maybe) in treating those employee clinets stressed out as they struggle with the impending recession
I think we need to keep a very careful eye on this one, it would be a real tragedy if a client group that has consistently called for such services sees the promise of delivery lost.
But hey thats the "Market" for you!!!

Diabetes led the way

Interesting day today, discussing and considering how primary care services could and probably will care for people we consider labelled as having "serious mental illness"(SMI). In other words the psychoses such as Schizophrenia and Bi-Polar disorder. Why Diabetes in the header to this entry? Well not so long ago people with diabetes would attend diabetic clinics in hospitals, spend times in waiting areas and have their blood sugars measured and their insulin levels titrated. Something that a GP or Practice nurse was not considered competent to do. Then a change occurred and the staff in Primary care were trained up (or developed competencies if you prefer) and the ongoing care of people with diabetes was transferred to primary care. No more trips to hospitals, and only probably going there at all if matters became outwith the scope of primary care.
Now could the same occur for people with  SMI? Could their routine care be in the primary care setting, could this be achieved with the presence of existing secondary mental health staff located in primary care for support of their colleagues? Consider the gains. no more attending out patient clinics in possibly stigmatising settings, no more six monthly appointments where you see a different person each time, and possibly the chance to address the issue of poor physical health which still blights the lives of these clients.
Could it happen?