Firstly I am not going to rehash the content of the report which is being closely read by many more wiser than I. However, suffice to say it has provoked a great deal of comment and consternation in equal measure. I want to draw a rather strange connection (possibly) between the report and the utterances of Chris Huhne the ex cabinet minister who is currently being mauled by the media for various reasons not least being found guilty of perverting the course of justice.
The fall from grace (as its strangely known) of a public figure is always it seems enjoyed in a kind of perverse way by all of us. It's a bit like watching a train crash in very slow motion as all becomes unravelled, and the moment comes when the person involved has to make their statement, and exit in a dignified manner amongst the wreckage of their career and in this case public scrutiny of their private life.
I was most interested however, by the choice of language in his statement outside court.
He refferred to his need to accept responsibility for "something that happened ten years ago". Carefully chosen words that attempt to provide a distance and also remove a sense of ownership. Note , not something "that I did" but rather "something that happened".
Neat eh?
Almost a sort of admission but also a sense of not being personally responsible. So how does this connect to the Francis report? Well the events of the debacle that ensued in Stafford have been distilled to a pernicous and inhumane culture of an organisation that became obsessed with pursuing financial targets and in that process endangered the people it served by not providing a service that met their needs. Now many erudite verdicts are being delivered by many commentators and there are calls for resignations, and many protestations that targets should never have resulted in such a situation. Those who now provide this rational commentary are in part those who drove a culture began many years ago where the "business" of health became a reality.
So my question is really were the events of Stafford something that "happened" as if by chance or rather something "we did" by looking the other way distracted by the lure of the rewards offered and deaf to the cries of both patients and families?
Monday, 11 February 2013
Monday, 8 October 2012
So what?
"So what"?
Apart from being the title of a superb piece recorded by the Miles Davis Quintet it is the acid test of many a critical reader of research papers. Nowhere is that more true than in the world of mental health nursing research. Now I know many people can discuss research methods in a passionate and frankly frighteningly intensity, but to many readers of a more casual (or practical ) ilk it's the findings they care about.
Many will wonder about how long until this finding will drizzle down to the realities of practice, or indeed find it's way into policy.
There will of course be those who just evoke the "so what" response and move on..
This question of relevance became all the clearer at the Network for Psychiatric Nursing Research conference in Oxford in September. It was a rousing success and well attended . Delegates were present from over 20 countries, and more PhD's present than you could shake a stick at.
The opening adress was in the form of a conversation between Professor Alan Simpson and that venerable sage Professor Peter Nolan. Now Peter is a raconteur that always manages to leave you wanting more, he has a wealth of stories, views and perspectives that have come from a long (sorry Peter) and thoughtful life.He was fascinating to listen to but possibly kept his final and most challenging thought until last.
I am paraphrasing rather badly here, but essentially he asked when will researchers in the field of mental health start utilising thier skills to ask questions that really matter. Projects , he mused, may be fascinating and personally rewarding ; but where was their relevance to the users of the services provided.
An eloquent "So what" , that challenged those present and perhaps the wider community to consider how they could use their knowledge to achieve outcomes that would hold real meaning and relevance to those living lives challenged by poor mental health.
Perhaps a challenge for research agendas that are challenging and radical.
Perhpas an era of findings that cannot be dismissed with a cynical "so what".
Apart from being the title of a superb piece recorded by the Miles Davis Quintet it is the acid test of many a critical reader of research papers. Nowhere is that more true than in the world of mental health nursing research. Now I know many people can discuss research methods in a passionate and frankly frighteningly intensity, but to many readers of a more casual (or practical ) ilk it's the findings they care about.
Many will wonder about how long until this finding will drizzle down to the realities of practice, or indeed find it's way into policy.
There will of course be those who just evoke the "so what" response and move on..
This question of relevance became all the clearer at the Network for Psychiatric Nursing Research conference in Oxford in September. It was a rousing success and well attended . Delegates were present from over 20 countries, and more PhD's present than you could shake a stick at.
The opening adress was in the form of a conversation between Professor Alan Simpson and that venerable sage Professor Peter Nolan. Now Peter is a raconteur that always manages to leave you wanting more, he has a wealth of stories, views and perspectives that have come from a long (sorry Peter) and thoughtful life.He was fascinating to listen to but possibly kept his final and most challenging thought until last.
I am paraphrasing rather badly here, but essentially he asked when will researchers in the field of mental health start utilising thier skills to ask questions that really matter. Projects , he mused, may be fascinating and personally rewarding ; but where was their relevance to the users of the services provided.
An eloquent "So what" , that challenged those present and perhaps the wider community to consider how they could use their knowledge to achieve outcomes that would hold real meaning and relevance to those living lives challenged by poor mental health.
Perhaps a challenge for research agendas that are challenging and radical.
Perhpas an era of findings that cannot be dismissed with a cynical "so what".
Monday, 13 August 2012
The Crying Game(s)
Well its over, and we will all have our memories of what made the London Olympics memorable. For some it will be simply that they were there either as a volunteer, a spectator or even a participant. For most of us I guess we will have consumed the Olympics by watching the television coverage.
The need for immediacy has seen athletes asked that favourite question of pundits "How do you feel" when they were barely able to speak for exhaustion, and on occasion we have seen levels of self blame and doubt that were hard to watch as they apologised to all who had supported them. The sense of failure was almost palpable.
There were of course the triumphant moments on the finishing line and the podium when the medals were awarded. which brings me to my main observation. How many times over the past two weeks have we seen the outpouring of emotion accompanied with tears? It doeesn't seem to matter what gender the athlete was; they just let the tears flow.
If the London Olympics has been a chance to bust myths such as the Tube won't run, it will rain all the time or even it will all grind to an inept halt ; then surely the one myth that has gone is that we (the British) are a repressed race of individuals who cannot show emotion. It becomes all the more paradoxical when you recall that just about a year ago a great deal of emotion was being expressed in parts of the capital but mainly of anger and perhaps frustration.
So are we now more comfortable with showing how we feel?
As we enter the Post-Olympic period and others will try and harness all this good feeling for various ends perhaps we can remember that summer of 2012 when Britain found it was OK to show how you feel and even share that moment with strangers.
The need for immediacy has seen athletes asked that favourite question of pundits "How do you feel" when they were barely able to speak for exhaustion, and on occasion we have seen levels of self blame and doubt that were hard to watch as they apologised to all who had supported them. The sense of failure was almost palpable.
There were of course the triumphant moments on the finishing line and the podium when the medals were awarded. which brings me to my main observation. How many times over the past two weeks have we seen the outpouring of emotion accompanied with tears? It doeesn't seem to matter what gender the athlete was; they just let the tears flow.
If the London Olympics has been a chance to bust myths such as the Tube won't run, it will rain all the time or even it will all grind to an inept halt ; then surely the one myth that has gone is that we (the British) are a repressed race of individuals who cannot show emotion. It becomes all the more paradoxical when you recall that just about a year ago a great deal of emotion was being expressed in parts of the capital but mainly of anger and perhaps frustration.
So are we now more comfortable with showing how we feel?
As we enter the Post-Olympic period and others will try and harness all this good feeling for various ends perhaps we can remember that summer of 2012 when Britain found it was OK to show how you feel and even share that moment with strangers.
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Wardipedia has arrived!!
· Wardipedia (www.wardipedia.org) is a project of Star Wards..... which is the one and only project of the social justice charity Bright. Star Wards provides practical ideas and inspiring examples from and for mental health ward staff. About 600 wards are members and enjoying introducing small changes which make a massive difference to patients.
· There are over 1,000 examples of imaginative approaches by wards eg:
‘Virtual pets corner ‘ i.e. developing a pet photo display of patients’ and staffs’ pets and wards sponsoring an animal e.g. a retired donkey or a guide dog At the weekly Prepare and Share cooking group, the modern matron not only makes the coffee and washes up, but also does decorative serviette folding. The group is led by a ward manager who is a trained chef – including the skill of decorative pineapple carving! Football leagues, visits, stadium tours etc. The tour was to promote interest in local sport, active lifestyles and the importance of physical fitness. Podcast and music studio Remote control car races, and spacehopper races. Spontaneous paper plate Frisbee games. Repositioning a bed to give better view of outside Self-harm project run by a specialist nurse, including a camouflage clinic, support group, staff and training. The Catering Department have ‘Just for You’ where the patients are invited to design a meal themselves and the catering department will cook it for them. A four week poetry workshop (also for community clients) in conjunction with Radio Stoke.
· Wardipedia includes 77 ideas for enhancing inpatients’ experiences, with 11 in each of seven domains, structured around the concept of IMAGINE:
Imagination – what’s it like for the patient?
Mindfulness – chilling out
Activities – social, recreational, physical
Generosity - sharing, kindness, giving
Involvement –influence, information, independence
Neighbours – friends, family, fellow patients
Empathy – for self and others
For example:
7. Mentalising
17. Music
24. Wii
33. Men’s stuff
35. Bring yourself to work day
44. Gay patients
45. Patient involvement
47. Minority languages
53. Bank staff
55. Brain
59. Social media
70. Comfort objects
Thursday, 19 July 2012
What would you say?
To a new resource of over 1,000 items that can energise the day for people receiving in patient care?
Wait a few more days and I will direct you to a fabulous , cost effective veritable treasury of things to do. Tried and tested means of making in patient care more stimulating for all concerned
What will you say?
Wait a few more days and I will direct you to a fabulous , cost effective veritable treasury of things to do. Tried and tested means of making in patient care more stimulating for all concerned
What will you say?
Monday, 25 June 2012
One in four
I'm sure I have used the "one in four" statement many times. I have argued like many others before me that one in four people will have an episode of mental ill health/distress in their lifetime. The figure has been used by many to make people realise how we need to recognise and indeed de-stigmatise the number of people who need help but above all compassion for their situation.
But now we seem to have a new one in four. This new figure (actually based on a 2007 paper) argues that of those who have a mental health problem only one in four will actually be receiving treatment/help/assistance/support.So of that quarter of the population that need help only a quarter will be receiving it.
Quite an astonishing figure. Especially as the cost of this failure to treat /help is dwarfed by the savings to be accrued by returning people to a better place. As you can tell the argument is being underpinned by financial arguments (not surprising considering the London School of economics are involved) but isn't this really a moral issue?
Imagine if you will a quarter of diabetics only receiving treatment and a situation where retinopathy or gangrenous extremeties or indeed blindness were casually accepted. You can't really can you. Or even where a failure to treat for up to a year was accepted as a consequence of "how services are organised"
We do seem to be dogged by low expectations, fatalism and even a sense of nihlism when it comes to mental health.
But now we seem to have a new one in four. This new figure (actually based on a 2007 paper) argues that of those who have a mental health problem only one in four will actually be receiving treatment/help/assistance/support.So of that quarter of the population that need help only a quarter will be receiving it.
Quite an astonishing figure. Especially as the cost of this failure to treat /help is dwarfed by the savings to be accrued by returning people to a better place. As you can tell the argument is being underpinned by financial arguments (not surprising considering the London School of economics are involved) but isn't this really a moral issue?
Imagine if you will a quarter of diabetics only receiving treatment and a situation where retinopathy or gangrenous extremeties or indeed blindness were casually accepted. You can't really can you. Or even where a failure to treat for up to a year was accepted as a consequence of "how services are organised"
We do seem to be dogged by low expectations, fatalism and even a sense of nihlism when it comes to mental health.
Monday, 7 May 2012
"Homeland" and the issue of memory.
Quality drama, well thats the title afforded certain types of drama, along with the term "high production values" its meant to convey something extraordinary about what we choose to watch.
I guess the "Killing" seemd to be dominated by jumpers, "Borgen" by lamps and now the "Bridge" seems to focus on architecture and beautifully shot enigmatic locations in Sweden and Denmark.
But what of "Homeland" what will be your enduring memory of it? Theres no doubt it was a tense and gripping drama and not since "Twin Peaks" have I felt not only compelled to watch but also came to actually care about some of the characters. I suppose its nicely contemporary and also had that hard "real politik" with just an suggestion of dark and menacing forces (on both sides).
For me the really memorable episode was the penultimate one when Carrie became manic and distraught at the failure by others to understand and agree with her view of what was going on. I have never seen a more accurate depiction of the features of mania as she worked relentlessly to solve the problem of Abu Nasir. At the scene where her work was torn down off the wall the sound was faded and we saw her complete distress at not being believed. It seemd to me that could be the lived experience of many who we consider "unwell" or "ill". I found it sobering to see that so accurately depicted and for me will remain as an enduring memory.
Which is kind of neat as the series ended with Carrie hoping her memory would endure the ECT she was having. We wait to see if it does.
I guess the "Killing" seemd to be dominated by jumpers, "Borgen" by lamps and now the "Bridge" seems to focus on architecture and beautifully shot enigmatic locations in Sweden and Denmark.
But what of "Homeland" what will be your enduring memory of it? Theres no doubt it was a tense and gripping drama and not since "Twin Peaks" have I felt not only compelled to watch but also came to actually care about some of the characters. I suppose its nicely contemporary and also had that hard "real politik" with just an suggestion of dark and menacing forces (on both sides).
For me the really memorable episode was the penultimate one when Carrie became manic and distraught at the failure by others to understand and agree with her view of what was going on. I have never seen a more accurate depiction of the features of mania as she worked relentlessly to solve the problem of Abu Nasir. At the scene where her work was torn down off the wall the sound was faded and we saw her complete distress at not being believed. It seemd to me that could be the lived experience of many who we consider "unwell" or "ill". I found it sobering to see that so accurately depicted and for me will remain as an enduring memory.
Which is kind of neat as the series ended with Carrie hoping her memory would endure the ECT she was having. We wait to see if it does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)