Heterotopias of mental health care: The role of space in experiences of distress, madness and mental health service use.

The change from an institutional to community care model of mental health services can be seen as a fundamental spatial change in the lives of service users (Payne, 1999; Symonds & Kelly, 1998; Wolch & Philo, 2000). It has been argued that little attention has been paid to the experience of the specific sites of mental health care, due to a utopic (idealised and placeless) idea of ‘community’ present in ‘community care’ (Symonds, 1998). This project hence explored the role of space in service users’ experiences, both of mental health care, and community living. Seventeen ‘spatial interviews’ with service users, utilising participatory mapping techniques (Gould & White, 1974; Herlihy & Knapp, 2003; Pain & Francis, 2003), plus seven, already published first person narratives of distress (Hornstein, 2009), were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Mental health service sites are argued to have been described as heterotopias (Foucault, 1986a) of a ‘control society’ (Deleuze, 1992), dominated by observation and the administration of risk (Rose, 1998a), which can in turn be seen to make visible (Hetherington, 2011) to service users a passive and stigmatised subject position (Scheff, 1974; 1999). Such visible positioning can be seen to ‘modulate’ (Deleuze, 1992) participants’ experiences in mainstream space. The management of space has hence been argued to be a central issue in the production and management of distress and madness in the community, both in terms of a differential experience of spaces as ‘concordant’ or ‘discordant’ with distress, and with movement through space being described as a key mediator of experiences of distress. It is argued that this consideration of space has profound implications for the ‘social inclusion’ agenda (Spandler, 2007; Wallcraft, 2001).

Are mental health staff getting better at asking about abuse and neglect?

This study ascertained the extent to which abuse and neglect are identified and recorded by mental health services. A comprehensive audit of 250 randomly selected files from four community mental health centres in Auckland, New Zealand was conducted, using similar methodology to that of a 1997 audit in the same city so as to permit comparisons. Significant increases, compared to the 1997 audit, were found in the rates of child sexual and physical abuse, and adulthood sexual assault (but not adulthood physical assault) identified in the files. Identification of physical and emotional neglect, however, was poor. Male service users were asked less often than females; and male staff enquired less often than female staff. People with a diagnosis indicative of psychosis, such as ‘schizophrenia’, tended to be asked less often and had significantly lower rates of abuse/neglect identified. Despite the overall improvement, mental health services are still missing significant amounts of childhood and adulthood adversities, especially neglect. All services need clear policies that all service users be asked about both abuse and neglect, whatever their gender or diagnosis, and that staff receive training that address the barriers to asking and to responding therapeutically to disclosures.