Public and private psychiatry: Can they work together and is it worth the effort?

Objective: Partnerships in mental health care, particularly between public and private psychiatric services, are being increasingly recognized as important for optimizing patient management and the efficient organization of services. However, public sector mental health services and private psychiatrists do not always work well together and there seem to be a number of barriers to effective collaboration. This study set out to investigate the extent of collaborative 'shared care' arrangements between a public mental health service and private psychiatrists practising nearby. It also examined possible barriers to collaboration and some possible solutions to the identified problems. Method: A questionnaire examining the above factors was sent to all public sector mental health clinicians and all private psychiatrists in the area. Results: One hundred and five of the 154 (68.2%) public sector clinicians and 103 of the 194 (53.1%) private psychiatrists returned surveys. The main barriers to successful collaboration identified by members of both sectors were: 'Difficulty communicating' endorsed by 71.4% of public clinicians and 72% of private psychiatrists, 'Confusion of roles and responsibilities' endorsed by 62.9% and 66%, respectively, and 'Different treatment approach' by 47.6% and 45.6%, respectively. Over 60% of private psychiatrists identified problems with access to the public system as a barrier to successful shared care arrangements. It also emerged, as hypothesized, that the public and private systems tend to manage different patient populations and that public clinicians in particular are not fully aware of the private psychiatrists' range of expertise. This would result in fewer referrals for shared care across the sectors. Conclusions: A number of barriers to public sector clinicians and private psychiatrists collaborating in shared care arrangements were identified. The two groups surveyed identified similar barriers. Some of these can potentially be addressed by changes to service systems. Others require cultural shifts in both sectors. Improved communications including more opportunities for formal and informal meetings between people working in the two sectors would be likely to improve the understanding of the complementary sector's perspective and practice. Further changes would be expected to require careful work between the sectors on training, employment and practice protocols and initiatives, to allow better use of the existing services and resources.

Health for all beyond 2000: the demise of the Alma-Ata Declaration and primary health care in developing countries

Access to basic health services was affirmed as a fundamental human right in the Declaration of Alma-Ata in 1978. The model formally adopted for providing healthcare services was primary health care (PHC), which involved universal, community-based preventive and curative services, with substantial community involvement. PHC,did not achieve its goals for several reasons, including the refusal of experts and politicians in developed countries to accept the principle that communities should plan and implement their own heathcare services. Changes in economic philosophy led to the replacement of PHC by Health Sector Reform, based on market forces and the economic benefits of better health. It is time to abandon economic ideology and determine the methods that will provide access to basic healthcare services for all people.

Infusing the use of seasonal climate forecasting into crop management practice in North East Australia using discussion support software

Seasonal climate forecasting offers potential for improving management of crop production risks in the cropping systems of NE Australia. But how is this capability best connected to management practice? Over the past decade, we have pursued participative systems approaches involving simulation-aided discussion with advisers and decision-makers. This has led to the development of discussion support software as a key vehicle for facilitating infusion of forecasting capability into practice. In this paper, we set out the basis of our approach, its implementation and preliminary evaluation. We outline the development of the discussion support software Whopper Cropper, which was designed for, and in close consultation with, public and private advisers. Whopper Cropper consists of a database of simulation output and a graphical user interface to generate analyses of risks associated with crop management options. The charts produced provide conversation pieces for advisers to use with their farmer clients in relation to the significant decisions they face. An example application, detail of the software development process and an initial survey of user needs are presented. We suggest that discussion support software is about moving beyond traditional notions of supply-driven decision support systems. Discussion support software is largely demand-driven and can compliment participatory action research programs by providing cost-effective general delivery of simulation-aided discussions about relevant management actions. The critical role of farm management advisers and dialogue among key players is highlighted. We argue that the discussion support concept, as exemplified by the software tool Whopper Cropper and the group processes surrounding it, provides an effective means to infuse innovations, like seasonal climate forecasting, into farming practice. Crown Copyright (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.