Is discrepancy between actual and preferred work activities a factor in work-related stress for mental health occupational therapists and social workers

In the Western developed nations, the changing pattern of mental health care provision has necessitated mental health staff adopting new approaches to service delivery across a diverse and expanding range of service settings. The impact of changed service delivery on Australian mental health professionals is an area that has not been well studied. The aim of the study was to identify the current clinical work activities performed by occupational therapists and social workers and whether there was a discrepancy between the actual and preferred work activities. The study also aimed to identify whether any discrepancy between their actual and preferred clinical work activities was associated with higher levels of stress. A cross-sectional survey of 304 (response rate 76.6%) occupational therapists and social workers in Australian mental health services was conducted. A work activities scale developed specifically for this study and the Mental Health Professionals Stress Scale were used to measure actual and preferred work activities and stress respectively. Both groups experienced a discrepancy between their actual and preferred work activities, with the occupational therapists and the social workers mostly wanting to undertake a diverse range of activities to a significantly greater extent than they currently were. As predicted, stress was associated with the discrepancy between the kind of work that the participants wanted to do and the kind of work that their job actually entailed. Health workers require assistance to adapt to their new work roles and to achieve a balance between generic and discipline-specific competencies. This has implications for education and professional training.

Routine measurement of outcomes in Australia's public sector mental health services

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the Australian experience to date with a national 'roll out' of routine outcome measurement in public sector mental health services. METHODS: Consultations were held with 123 stakeholders representing a range of roles. RESULTS: Australia has made an impressive start to nationally implementing routine outcome measurement in mental health services, although it still has a long way to go. All States/Territories have established data collection systems, although some are more streamlined than others. Significant numbers of clinicians and managers have been trained in the use of routine outcome measures, and thought is now being given to ongoing training strategies. Outcome measurement is now occurring 'on the ground'; all States/Territories will be reporting data for 2003-04, and a number have been doing so for several years. Having said this, there is considerable variability regarding data coverage, completeness and compliance. Some States/Territories have gone to considerable lengths to 'embed' outcome measurement in day-to-day practice. To date, reporting of outcome data has largely been limited to reports profiling individual consumers and/or aggregate reports that focus on compliance and data quality issues, although a few States/Territories have begun to turn their attention to producing aggregate reports of consumers by clinician, team or service. CONCLUSION: Routine outcome measurement is possible if it is supported by a co-ordinated, strategic approach and strong leadership, and there is commitment from clinicians and managers. The Australian experience can provide lessons for other countries.