Friday, July 31, 2009
New Horizons Consultation
I'm not sure whether and where this post will appear but thought I'd just try it out and see...
V.
V.
# posted by Valeska : 1:55 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Here is a summary of the more substantial comments so far (I'll have to do them in two goes)
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:14:27 +0000 Jan wrote:
Subject: New Horizons - consultation launched
The New Horizons consultation document from the Dept of Health has just been launched for consultation and feedback. Responses by 15th October. It is an important statement of the government's positions and intentions for mental health services and prevention.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Mentalhealth/NewHorizons/index.htm
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:18:05 +0000 David wrote:
Thanks Jan and good timing for you Emma? You asked for a "good news article on mental health issues which with the group we can un-pack employing discourse analysis. I hope to see how the medical model filters
through to everything. I want to use an everyday kind of article to get the
initial discussion going?"
This Dept of Health document (New Horizons) is sent out as part of a public consultation exercise "on a new vision for mental health and wellbeing
to help develop the promotion of mental health and well-being across the population, improve the quality and accessibility of services, and to enable SHAs to deliver their regional visions, in a way that reflects the changed nature of the NHS"
It is not a newspaper article but it is everyday psy-paganda and the proposed circulation list includes "organisations of services users".
The whole report is long but the exec summary is shorter.
It seems to me ideal for critical deconstruction and there is the bonus that the results of that deconstruction could if the group wanted be submitted as part of the public consultation. (Idealists amongst us might even think it would be heeded and contribute to policy).
This seems to me a productive text for critical processing. The document pretty well starts with a statement of "our vision" which begins:
"In 2020 most adults will understand the importance of mental well-being to their full and productive functioning in society, to their physical health, and to their ability to make healthy lifestyle choices. They will also understand some of the factors that affect their mental well-being, and will have developed their own everyday ways for taking care of it."
It would take time and energy to properly critically process this but in the first few lines I suggest we can start to see the discursive strategy being deployed:
* to discursively position 'mental well-being' as important because necessary for labour market productivity (aka 'full and productive functioning in society'
* to position ill-health as the result of lack of ability to make lifestyle choices (rather than for example of inequality, poverty, toxic social environments, disabling practices etc)
* to position inability to make healthy lifestyle choices as symptomatic of mental ill-being (i.e. to need treatment . . .CBT (Choice behaviour Therapy?)
* to position the individual as responsible for taking care of their mental well-being (and thereby to position the individual as responsible for their mental ill-being if they dont i.e. to victim blame)
* the '2020 vision' as a totalising achievement of discursive dominance and subjugation of counter discourses through a further tightening of the psy-complexification screw
Further critical processing would introduce modify some readings, introduce new ones etc. and I am sure the Scottish mental health expressive arts group members you have the privilege to learn from would articulate fascinating radical critical readings of this document (as would others)
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:14:27 +0000 Jan wrote:
Subject: New Horizons - consultation launched
The New Horizons consultation document from the Dept of Health has just been launched for consultation and feedback. Responses by 15th October. It is an important statement of the government's positions and intentions for mental health services and prevention.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Mentalhealth/NewHorizons/index.htm
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:18:05 +0000 David wrote:
Thanks Jan and good timing for you Emma? You asked for a "good news article on mental health issues which with the group we can un-pack employing discourse analysis. I hope to see how the medical model filters
through to everything. I want to use an everyday kind of article to get the
initial discussion going?"
This Dept of Health document (New Horizons) is sent out as part of a public consultation exercise "on a new vision for mental health and wellbeing
to help develop the promotion of mental health and well-being across the population, improve the quality and accessibility of services, and to enable SHAs to deliver their regional visions, in a way that reflects the changed nature of the NHS"
It is not a newspaper article but it is everyday psy-paganda and the proposed circulation list includes "organisations of services users".
The whole report is long but the exec summary is shorter.
It seems to me ideal for critical deconstruction and there is the bonus that the results of that deconstruction could if the group wanted be submitted as part of the public consultation. (Idealists amongst us might even think it would be heeded and contribute to policy).
This seems to me a productive text for critical processing. The document pretty well starts with a statement of "our vision" which begins:
"In 2020 most adults will understand the importance of mental well-being to their full and productive functioning in society, to their physical health, and to their ability to make healthy lifestyle choices. They will also understand some of the factors that affect their mental well-being, and will have developed their own everyday ways for taking care of it."
It would take time and energy to properly critically process this but in the first few lines I suggest we can start to see the discursive strategy being deployed:
* to discursively position 'mental well-being' as important because necessary for labour market productivity (aka 'full and productive functioning in society'
* to position ill-health as the result of lack of ability to make lifestyle choices (rather than for example of inequality, poverty, toxic social environments, disabling practices etc)
* to position inability to make healthy lifestyle choices as symptomatic of mental ill-being (i.e. to need treatment . . .CBT (Choice behaviour Therapy?)
* to position the individual as responsible for taking care of their mental well-being (and thereby to position the individual as responsible for their mental ill-being if they dont i.e. to victim blame)
* the '2020 vision' as a totalising achievement of discursive dominance and subjugation of counter discourses through a further tightening of the psy-complexification screw
Further critical processing would introduce modify some readings, introduce new ones etc. and I am sure the Scottish mental health expressive arts group members you have the privilege to learn from would articulate fascinating radical critical readings of this document (as would others)
Second lot
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:43:16 +0000 Valeska wrote -
Hi all
I also welcome a joint response to this consultation and was wondering whether maybe it would make sense to focus the discussion around some of the actual consultation questions? (See list below)
Some of them are asking for examples of good and bad practice so maybe we could have one thread where people can just add examples from their area?
Other threads could discuss particular questions and come up with a collective response. (I guess here it isn't as important that we all agree because those of us who don't can always respond to the consultation as individuals as well.) This might make it a bit more manageable both in terms of pulling together a collective response as well as not all of us having to respond to all of the questions.
Would that be an option?
Valeska
Consultation Questions:
1. What do you think are the three most important changes for mental health and mental health care in the next 10 years? And why?
2. Do you support the twin themes of public mental health/prevention and mental health service development? Please explain your views, giving examples if possible.
3. Are the guiding values described in section 1 the right ones? Please explain your view giving examples, if possible.
4. What should the Government do to promote more personalised services for people with mental health problems and their families? It would be helpful to hear about both what works in your area, and, if appropriate, what does not and what could be done in the future.
5. In your view, which are the most important areas in mental health services where value for money could be improved? And how should that be done? If possible, please indicate examples of the current costs of services and areas where the potential savings might exist.
6. Which areas can you identify where innovative technology can help people with mental health problems, and their families? It would be particularly helpful to hear about examples of what works well in your local area and what could be done in the future.
7. In your view, where are the current gaps in research evidence supporting the development of New Horizons?
8. How can we support local leadership in building mental well-being and mental health care services? Please explain your view giving examples, if possible.
9. How can we promote joint working between local authorities, the NHS and others to make New Horizons effective in your local area?
10. What do you think are the most important steps that the Government can take to reduce the inequalities that affect our mental health? And why?
11. How best can we improve a) the transition from child and adolescent mental health services to adult services, and b) the interface between services for younger and older adults? What works well in your local area? And what does not?
12. In your view, what more should the Government do to combat stigma?
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:43:16 +0000 Valeska wrote -
Hi all
I also welcome a joint response to this consultation and was wondering whether maybe it would make sense to focus the discussion around some of the actual consultation questions? (See list below)
Some of them are asking for examples of good and bad practice so maybe we could have one thread where people can just add examples from their area?
Other threads could discuss particular questions and come up with a collective response. (I guess here it isn't as important that we all agree because those of us who don't can always respond to the consultation as individuals as well.) This might make it a bit more manageable both in terms of pulling together a collective response as well as not all of us having to respond to all of the questions.
Would that be an option?
Valeska
Consultation Questions:
1. What do you think are the three most important changes for mental health and mental health care in the next 10 years? And why?
2. Do you support the twin themes of public mental health/prevention and mental health service development? Please explain your views, giving examples if possible.
3. Are the guiding values described in section 1 the right ones? Please explain your view giving examples, if possible.
4. What should the Government do to promote more personalised services for people with mental health problems and their families? It would be helpful to hear about both what works in your area, and, if appropriate, what does not and what could be done in the future.
5. In your view, which are the most important areas in mental health services where value for money could be improved? And how should that be done? If possible, please indicate examples of the current costs of services and areas where the potential savings might exist.
6. Which areas can you identify where innovative technology can help people with mental health problems, and their families? It would be particularly helpful to hear about examples of what works well in your local area and what could be done in the future.
7. In your view, where are the current gaps in research evidence supporting the development of New Horizons?
8. How can we support local leadership in building mental well-being and mental health care services? Please explain your view giving examples, if possible.
9. How can we promote joint working between local authorities, the NHS and others to make New Horizons effective in your local area?
10. What do you think are the most important steps that the Government can take to reduce the inequalities that affect our mental health? And why?
11. How best can we improve a) the transition from child and adolescent mental health services to adult services, and b) the interface between services for younger and older adults? What works well in your local area? And what does not?
12. In your view, what more should the Government do to combat stigma?
Third lot!!
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:25:17 +0000 Alison wrote:
Maybe one issue would be how we defined the 'collective' response when submitting it, 'some people who are interested in community psychology who are not necessarily advocating a voice of community psychology' maybe isn't catchy enough.
Maybe the consultation questions make it extremely difficult to pull together a collective response and we could also work outside of this a bit- exploring the document through CP and submitting a critical review rather than just focusing on the bits they have highlighted, I note that
4. What should the Government do to promote more personalised services for people with mental health problems and their families? It would be helpful to hear about both what works in your area, and, if appropriate, what does not and what could be done in the future.
is an interesting way to 'consult' which assumes there should be more personalised services for people with mental health problems and that the governement should be promoting this more. Any examples of good and bad practise here would be legitimising individualisation? If we just ignored their questions we could also work without having to give a definitive statement that encapsulated all our views, but could present several issues/reflections/points from a CP perspective?
I'm wondering also if, Emma, you are thinking of proposing this as a topic in the work you are doing? I was talking with my boss about this document today and she is really keen for the organisation to submit a response. I was discussing with her whether I could get directly involved in working alongside members to think about the document in terms of my dissertation (which she is keen on). Afterwards I felt acutley aware that by doing this I would not just be supporting members of the project to have their voice heard but that I would be focusing 'their' voice through a community psychology perspective and, more specifically, looking at it's relationship to the medical model. While this is not necessarily a bad thing I began wondering about the implications of focusing a critique in this way- how many other ways of critiquing the consultation would be ignored and what this may mean if members wanted to submit a response. I suppose I am just thinking out loud here.
I vote for just setting up some threads on the hub asap (I'm not sure if Grant is the only one who knows how to do this!!?!!) and seeing where it goes, there are several already who are interested and, as we only have two and a half months to do this, should start while the momentum is there!!
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:25:17 +0000 Alison wrote:
Maybe one issue would be how we defined the 'collective' response when submitting it, 'some people who are interested in community psychology who are not necessarily advocating a voice of community psychology' maybe isn't catchy enough.
Maybe the consultation questions make it extremely difficult to pull together a collective response and we could also work outside of this a bit- exploring the document through CP and submitting a critical review rather than just focusing on the bits they have highlighted, I note that
4. What should the Government do to promote more personalised services for people with mental health problems and their families? It would be helpful to hear about both what works in your area, and, if appropriate, what does not and what could be done in the future.
is an interesting way to 'consult' which assumes there should be more personalised services for people with mental health problems and that the governement should be promoting this more. Any examples of good and bad practise here would be legitimising individualisation? If we just ignored their questions we could also work without having to give a definitive statement that encapsulated all our views, but could present several issues/reflections/points from a CP perspective?
I'm wondering also if, Emma, you are thinking of proposing this as a topic in the work you are doing? I was talking with my boss about this document today and she is really keen for the organisation to submit a response. I was discussing with her whether I could get directly involved in working alongside members to think about the document in terms of my dissertation (which she is keen on). Afterwards I felt acutley aware that by doing this I would not just be supporting members of the project to have their voice heard but that I would be focusing 'their' voice through a community psychology perspective and, more specifically, looking at it's relationship to the medical model. While this is not necessarily a bad thing I began wondering about the implications of focusing a critique in this way- how many other ways of critiquing the consultation would be ignored and what this may mean if members wanted to submit a response. I suppose I am just thinking out loud here.
I vote for just setting up some threads on the hub asap (I'm not sure if Grant is the only one who knows how to do this!!?!!) and seeing where it goes, there are several already who are interested and, as we only have two and a half months to do this, should start while the momentum is there!!
<< Home
Post a Comment