Improving collaboration between private psychiatrists, the public mental health sector and general practitioners : evaluation of the Partnership Project

Objectives: We describe the evaluation of the Partnership Project, which was designed to improve linkages between public and private sector mental health services. We consider the Project's key elements: a Linkage Unit, designed to improve collaborative arrangements for consumers and promote systems-level and cultural change; and the expansion of private psychiatrists' roles to include supervision and training, case conferencing and secondary consultation. The evaluation aimed to describe the impacts and outcomes of these elements.

Method: The evaluation used de-identified data from the Linkage Unit database, the Project's billing system, and the Health Insurance Commission (HIC). It drew on consultations with key stakeholders (semistructured interviews with 36 key informants, and information from a forum attended by over 40 carers and a meeting of five public sector and three private sector psychiatrists) and a series of case studies.

Results: The Linkage Unit facilitated 224 episodes of collaborative care, many of which had positive outcomes for providers, consumers and carers. It had a significant impact at a systems level, raising consciousness about collaboration and influencing procedural changes. Thirty-two private psychiatrists consented to undertaking expanded roles, and the Project was billed $78 032 accordingly. Supervision and training were most common, involving 16 psychiatrists and accounting for approximately 80% of the total hours and cost. Commonwealth expenditure on private psychiatrists' participation in the expanded roles was not associated with a reduction in benefits paid by the HIC. Key informants were generally positive about the expanded roles.

Conclusions: The Project represented a considered, innovative approach to dealing with poor collaboration between the public mental health sector, private psychiatrists and GPs. The Linkage Unit achieved significant systems-level and cultural change, which has the potential to be sustained. Expanded roles for private psychiatrists, particularly supervision and training, may improve collaboration, and warrant further exploration in terms of costs and benefits.

Remunerating private psychiatrists for participating in case conferences

ABSTRACT : BACKGROUND : On 1 November 2000, a series of new item numbers was added to the Medicare Benefits Schedule, which allowed for case conferences between physicians (including psychiatrists) and other multidisciplinary providers. On 1 November 2002, an additional set of numbers was added, designed especially for use by psychiatrists. This paper reports the findings of an evaluation of these item numbers. RESULTS : The uptake of the item numbers in the three years post their introduction was low to moderate at best. Eighty nine psychiatrists rendered 479 case conferences at a cost to the Health Insurance Commission of $70,584. Psychiatrists who have used the item numbers are generally positive about them, as are consumers. Psychiatrists who have not used them have generally not done so because of a lack of knowledge, rather than direct opposition. The use of the item numbers is increasing over time, perhaps as psychiatrists become more aware of their existence and of their utility in maximising quality of care. CONCLUSION : The case conferencing item numbers have potential, but as yet this potential is not being realised. Some small changes to the conditions associated with the use of the item numbers could assist their uptake.

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.

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.

The Hamburg-Model of Integrated Care for Patients with Psychosis: Part 1

Objective: The "Hamburg model" designates an integrated care model for severely ill patients with psychotic disorders financed by the health insurance system in accordance with § 140 SGB V.Methods: It comprises comprehensive and long-term treatment within a regional network of the psychosis center of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) and private psychiatrists. The treatment model consists of therapeutic assertive community treatment (ACT) provided by a highly specialized treatment team and need-adapted in- and outpatient care.Results and conclusions: The present article summarizes the disease- and treatment-specific rationales for the model development as well as the model structure and treatment contents. The article further summarizes the effectiveness and efficiency results of a study comparing the Hamburg model and treatment as usual (without ACT) within a 12-month follow-up study (ACCESS trial).

Adult mental health needs and expenditure in Australia

Background Relatively little international work has examined whether mental health resource allocation matches need. This study aimed to determine whether adult mental health resources in Australia are being distributed equitably. Method Individual measures of need were extrapolated to Australian Areas, and Area-based proxies of need were considered. Particular attention was paid to the prevalence of mental health problems, since this is arguably the most objective measure of need. The extent to which these measures predicted public sector, private sector and total adult mental health expenditure at an Area level was examined. Results In the public sector, 41.6% of expenditure variation was explained by the prevalence of affective disorders, personality disorders, cognitive impairment and psychosis, as well as the Area's level of economic resources and State/Territory effects. In the private sector, 72.4% of expenditure variation was explained by service use and State/Territory effects (with an alternative model incorporating service use and State/Territory supply of private psychiatrists explaining 69.4% of expenditure variation). A relatively high proportion (58.7%) of total expenditure variation could be explained by service utilisation and State/Territory effects. Conclusions For services to be delivered equitably, the majority of variation in expenditure would have to be accounted for by appropriate measures of need. The best model for public sector expenditure included an appropriate measure of need but had relatively poor explanatory power. The models for private sector and total expenditure had greater explanatory power, but relied on less appropriate measures of need. It is concluded that mental health services in Australia are not yet being delivered equitably.

Equity management strategies in the Australian private sector

This paper outlines the methods and outcomes of a study into equity management strategies in Australian private sector organisations reporting to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency. Reports from 1976 organisations indicate eleven key factors characterising equity management in Australia. The study highlights differences within previously identified social structural policies, temperamental and opportunity policies and identifies a further policy type, categorised as “support policies”. Differences have also been identified in relation to distribution structures, suggesting that gender is not the sole consideration in determining equity management strategies. The principle of distribution also figures strongly in equity management implementation.

Public-private partnerships in ICT for education

A recent World Bank report notes that across the world, per capita economic growth is driven by three information and communication technology (ICT)-related factors: investments in equipment and infrastructure, investments in human capital (i.e. in education and innovation), and efficient use of labour (human resource) and capital that increases productivity (Schware 2005). These three factors have a direct impact on the provisioning of education. For one, the demand to adopt ICT-supported education services, or e-education, is outweighing the capacity of governments to adequately support education reform and expansion.