4.2 Article

Clinician stakeholder experiences of a new youth mental health model in Australia: A qualitative study

Journal

EARLY INTERVENTION IN PSYCHIATRY
Volume 15, Issue 6, Pages 1637-1643

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eip.13104

Keywords

early intervention; model of care; qualitative; service development; youth mental health

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study shows that clinicians value the services provided by the headspace Early Intervention Teams (hEIT), but there are also challenges such as referral confusion and staff turnover. Suggestions to increase staffing to improve the stability, skill diversity, and viability of the service have been made.
Aim Late teens and early adulthood is the peak age of onset for mental disorders. Currently, there is a gap between primary mental health care and more intensive mental health services for young people in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Two headspace Early Intervention Teams (hEITs) were developed to bridge this gap in Sydney Local Health District (SLHD), in Sydney, Australia. This study aims to explore clinician experiences of hEIT after the first 2 years of implementation. Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with key clinicians working within hEIT or closely associated with hEIT. Nine interviews were conducted, transcribed and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis. Results Four themes were identified: (1) building a bridge between services, (2) filling a clinical gap, (3) service collaborations and their challenges and (4) difficulties of small team size. Conclusions There is evidence that clinicians value the service provided by hEIT. There are difficulties such as referral confusion, staff turnover and suggestions to increase staffing to improve the stability, skill diversity and viability of the service. Findings have implications for other collaborative youth mental health models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available