Labour’s mental health policy

13 comments on “Labour’s mental health policy ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Michael who failed Civics 1

   12 May 2017 at 11:38 am

   I note that the “increase” is restricted to a pilot-study, albeit in eight sites across the country (better than the two sites that I believe I ead in an earlier announcement), thus implying that it is not a long-term measure and will cease on the study’s conclusion. Notwithstanding that any improvement in the provision of mental health treatment is welcome, I wonder whether leaving the statutory gatekeeping measures in place will really lead to better outcomes for people with mental health problems? At present, treatment providers are able to resort to the “serious danger” critreria in the legislation, answer in the negative, and decline to provide treatment. As we know, there are sometimes tragic results when treatment is denied to people who really need it but have been assessed otherwise. There seems to be no appeal mechanism either. Another unaddressed matter is that the causes of mental disorders are multifactorial. For example, the very first anecdote in the People’s Mental Health Review concerned a person whose mental disorder was aggravated by WINZ – a common circumstance. I see nothing from Labour that this factor, or others, will even be acknowledged, let alone remedied. Overall, I give Labour a C minus grade for this policy, which is a significant improvement from some of its earlier policies.
   • Sacha 1.1

     12 May 2017 at 1:34 pm

     It won’t be the only thing they do to improve mental health services, just trying a different new approach in one part of the system. Not sure how well this will be communicated, of course.

     Increasing DHB budgets and creating a new Mental Health Commission seem likely under a Labour/Green govt. Less so under a Lab/NZF one I guess. But a Nat/poodle govt cannot admit they’ve dangerously underfunded health for years compared with soaring need from demographic changes and population rises – so I can’t see much geniune improvement under their stweardship.
   • Nope 1.2

     12 May 2017 at 2:05 pm

     I don’t think you know what a pilot is.
2. anderrawshark 2

   12 May 2017 at 12:02 pm

   Michael, it is good that at this stage it is a pilot study. They need to find out how the service goes, measure the outcomes and tweak it (hopefully the tweaks won’t be major). I think this service will overcome the “serious danger “issue” because the services resort to that because they are chronically understaffed/underfunded.

   The evidence is very clear, early intervention, targeted evidence based treatment ensuring the best outcomes.

   If it wasn’t so outrageous, I would have laughed when Jonathan Coleman announced improvements to the 24 crisis line terming it “early intervention”. To anyone who has worked in the area, Dr Coleman displayed his complete ignorance of the area when she said this……………………………
3. Cinny 3

   12 May 2017 at 12:11 pm

   THANK YOU SO MUCH LABOUR, THANK YOU.

   This start to mend and improve mental health services for kiwis will save lives.

   So many people delay going to the Dr until it is too late purely due to the cost of a visit. Too late for those with mental health difficulties results in suicide. It’s as cut and dry as that.

   I told someone today about this policy and they burst into tears. That’s how important changes like this are. One has to have been touched by the lack of mental health support in NZ to truly appreciate how valuable this policy is.

   THANK YOU.
4. Psych nurse 4

   12 May 2017 at 2:38 pm

   This initiative does not go far enough, this helps the worried well, the big issues concern acute inpatient care. Actually what is needed is a massive increase in social housing. Acute units are clogged by now well patients who have no where to go, homeless people have realized that you can get a bed by fronting crisis teams saying the magic word Suicide and gaining admission, this is why the units at the DHB I work at, run at 125% occupancy. Overcrowding does not help people recover, does not let staff do their jobs well.
   We do not need extra beds but somewhere for people to live in the wider community.
   • Cinny 4.1

     12 May 2017 at 3:14 pm

     Woahs, appreciate your the insight, I never knew how bad things were getting in that sector as a result of the housing crisis. So many suffering out there, homeless people having to leverage mental health just to have somewhere to sleep. Stretched DHB’s, overcrowding, leading to those in desperate need of mental health support suffering even more. Not a healthy work environment for the good people in that sector either.

     It’s incredible the flow on affects from the housing crisis, it’s just awful.
     • Psych nurse 4.1.1

       12 May 2017 at 6:56 pm

       No it is not a healthy work environment, my role is to ensure the next shift is staffed, sometimes the A shift [night] has only one or two nurses doing a double shift, that is 16 hrs , sometimes that may be twelve doubles, that means nurses awake for 24 hrs followed by a drive home, not safe for them or others on the road ,not safe for patients, mistakes with medication become more frequent, decision making impaired but without overtime, units would be unstaffed, nurses don’t care about the money but fill the vacancies because of a duty of care. My DHB has an active recruitment policy but no takers nationally or internationally.There is a world wide shortage of Mental Health Nurses. For the idiot Coleman to constantly spout rubbish about X number of nurses having been employed since national came to power, a figure that doesn’t take population growth or an ageing population into account makes my blood boil.
       Nurses are being constantly assaulted we always have staff on long term sick leave which costs them income, you would think that work place injuries would guarantee income but no, you loose the first week of ACC from your sick leave and then only 80% of your salary.
       So no it’s not a healthy environment.
       • mickysavage 4.1.1.1

         12 May 2017 at 7:43 pm

         Cheers PN and thanks for the comments. Much aroha …
       • ankerawshark 4.1.1.2

         12 May 2017 at 9:11 pm

         Gosh this is so much worse than when I worked in the services…………………

         I realize the problem with demand on inpatient beds and housing. But it doesn’t need to be either or.

         There is some evidence if people with psychosis have good f/u in the community, they are less likely to need inpatient care.
   • gsays 4.2

     12 May 2017 at 6:21 pm

     Cheers from me too.
     It occurs to me, any substantial change, for a sector so underfunded for so long, will take time.
     • Michael who failed Civics 4.2.1

       14 May 2017 at 12:02 am

       So we shouldn’t expect anything from Labour in the way of fewer people killing themselves then? Your comment reminds me of the stock response to people complaining that the last Labour government wasn’t interested in their problems: “We can’t do anything to help you now, but keep voting for us and look out for our long-term policies”. There’s only so much of this any electorate will put up with; by my calculations, the people of NZ reached the point of no return with Labour in 2005.
       • gsays 4.2.1.1

         14 May 2017 at 1:55 am

         Hi Michael,
         What I was eluding to was putting too much stock on a 2year trial.
         There has been a prolonged, systemic erosion of mental health investment.
         This will take an effort to change.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS