I support the Labour Campaign for Mental Health

LCMH PPC pledge card

Advertisements

2 Responses to I support the Labour Campaign for Mental Health

  1. Ah, a candidate making specific commitments that I could actually imagine them fulfilling!

    (I trust that you will yourself go through mental health awareness training! – if not already done?)

  2. jayman says:

    The problem with community mental health (supported living/rehabilitation) is that the proprietors of service provision extract huge amounts of the care funding formula to support their lifestyles. What little money remains after the ‘proprietor salary’ is used for the basic support requirements of daily living. I am frequently told that there is no money for adequate service user IT equipment, structured activity, education or training. Service users are frequently required to self fund education and training.

    Community care funding packages should include gym membership, training and education (meaningful and appropriate) activity and transport costs as part of a care package upon leaving secure care. The way that mental health support workers are recognised needs fundamental reform. Support workers should be the front line of service provision. Care co-ordinators, CPN’s, private (non NHS services) and local authorities all form part of a complex and bewildering web of cost and obstruction that produces unwanted delay and inefficiency. Service users should receive as close to 100% of their funding as possible, all costs should be justified and the poor individual who works closest to the service user (just above the minimum wage) ‘the support worker’ who works closest to the service user, should have more of a professional say in how the service user is supported and funded. I can describe the system at present as ‘human storage’ where shoulders are frequently shrugged and where failure to the service user is institutionally accepted as being the norm. Sometimes it is actively welcomed.

    I would like to see a service where support is quick, adaptive and where blame and accountability is always directed first at the service provider, not the service user. The CQC are box tickers and bureaucrats, their role needs to change along with their remit. care providers are too full of self interest and support workers are the reservoirs of accountability as opposed to the flowing waterways of support.

    We need a system whereby named and professional support workers are free and able to make direct demands to funding authorities for the needs (as identified by the service user) of the service user. what we have at the moment is a distinct lack of championing, conflict of interest (especially in the community placement process) in how funding is allocated ‘ebay bidding’ where service users are sold to the lowest common denominator/bidder of care provision. we need to see that human beings who need huge support, who often have issues with mental capacity and/or illness, who often have complex backgrounds and histories, are not institutionally treated like sub prime cattle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: