Psychiatric Bulletin (2002) 26: 235-236. doi: 10.1192/pb.26.6.235-b
© 2002 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Psychiatric Bulletin (2002) 26: 235-236
© 2002 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Old age psychiatry services: long-stay care facilities in Australia and the UK
Neville Hills
FRANZCP, 3 Jameson Street, Swanbourne, Western Australia 6010
Sir: John Snowden and Tom Arie (Psychiatric Bulletin, January
2002, 26, 24-26) covered a huge amount of ground, and inevitably
omitted some features of service delivery in the two countries. One major
difference is that hostel and nursing home care in Australia is accessed only
after assessment by a geriatric medicine team, and the costs of care are
largely met by the Commonwealth Government, which closely controls the number
of beds it approves. Patients are funded on a sliding scale that can be viewed
negatively as encouraging dependency, or positively as challenging nursing
homes to tackle seriously ill patients. UK nursing homes seem not to attract
additional funds for higher dependency care, which can lead to patients
blocking beds in acute general and psychiatric hospitals. The
Australian systems of documentation of dependency can be a drain on nursing
resources, directed at ensuring maximum funding rather than patient
benefits.
Western Australian old age psychiatry services have suffered age based
fiscal discrimination in recent years, and consequently limited community
services. UK social services provide substantial support care in the home that
is not available in Australia. The system of community based assessment is
well developed in Western Australia and emphasises early response by
assessment teams of a social worker and community mental health nurse,
followed by consultant intervention as required. The UK model favours
consultant assessment in the community in the first instance. My somewhat
heretical view is that this is costly and inefficient. Statistics of bed
numbers are notoriously unreliable. In the absence of any independent audit to
establish that each state is providing honest and accurate figures, and that
we are talking about units with the same operating characteristics, it is
impossible to establish validity. The throughput issue is
critical if comparing service delivery. Continuing care units in
the UK provide much of the permanent care seen in nursing homes in Australia.
I understand the units in Victoria are essentially continuing care facilities
despite the intentions, as are the confused and disturbed elderly (CADE) units
in New South Wales. Services in Western Australia have always followed a firm
policy of discharge only when difficult behaviours are abated. Western
Australia Health Department attempts to shift a minority of long-term but
behaviourally challenging patients into the private sector are misguided and
so far unsuccessful. Every psychiatric patient, whether long term or acute,
needs professional multi-disciplinary care until the reasons for that
specialist care are no longer present. Poorly resourced continuing
care in either country is simply an excuse for rebuilding the
back wards of mental hospitals.
I must also gently disagree with the implication that making long-term care
facilities domestic was intended to demedicalise care. The drive
for more domestic character was part of a deliberate process using
environmental design to help modify and manage behaviours with for example,
less use of medication. It was pioneered in Western Australia by Lefroy and
also in the state psychogeriatric services well before the Victorian
psychogeriatric nursing homes. The CADE units in New South Wales are also
similarly influenced by design and behavioural management concepts,
unfortunately often ignored in later developments in many states, including
Western Australia.