BJP CPD Online e-learning site
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bindman, J.
Right arrow Articles by Szmukler, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bindman, J.
Right arrow Articles by Szmukler, G.

The British Journal of Psychiatry 175: 327-330 (1999)
© 1999 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Evaluating mental health policy in England. Care Programme Approach and supervision registers

J Bindman, A Beck, G Glover, G Thornicroft, M Knapp, M Leese and G Szmukler
Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM), Institute of Psychiatry, London.

BACKGROUND: The Care Programme Approach (CPA) and supervision register policies in England are intended to prioritize patients to receive specialist mental health care. AIMS: To describe and evaluate the practical application of the policies. METHOD: A questionnaire survey of key informants in mental health provider trusts and an analysis of aggregated data collected by health authorities using the Mental Illness Needs Index as a measure of population need. RESULTS: On average, 1175 per 100,000 total population are subject to the CPA (95% CI = 1055-1309) and 8.6 per 100,000 (95% CI = 7.5-9.9) are on supervision registers. Wide local variations in the number of people subject to the CPA and supervision registers are not explained by variations in population need. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritization to receive specialist mental health services is carried out inconsistently, and inequitable use of resources may result.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J Soc PsychiatryHome page
V. Svab and M. Tomori
Mental Health Services in Slovenia
International Journal of Social Psychiatry, September 1, 2002; 48(3): 177 - 188.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychiatr. Bull.Home page
M. Philpot, H. Hales, B. Sheehan, S. Reeves, and M. Lawlor
The use of operationalised criteria for inclusion on a Care Programme Approach register
Psychiatr. Bull., May 1, 2001; 25(5): 172 - 174.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Adv. Psychiatr. Treat.Home page
S. P. Singh
Running an effective community mental health team
Advan. Psychiatr. Treat., November 1, 2000; 6(6): 414 - 422.
[Full Text]

Home page
 Br. J. PsychiatryHome page
J. BINDMAN, G. GLOVER, D. GOLDBERG, and D. CHISHOLM
Expenditure on mental health care by English health authorities: a potential cause of inequity
The British Journal of Psychiatry, September 1, 2000; 177(3): 267 - 274.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. PsychiatryHome page
J. BINDMAN, A. BECK, G. THORNICROFT, M. KNAPP, and G. SZMUKLER
Psychiatric patients at greatest risk and in greatest need: Impact of the Supervision Register Policy
The British Journal of Psychiatry, July 1, 2000; 177(1): 33 - 37.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals
Copyright © 1999 The Royal College of Psychiatrists.