4.5 Article

An examination of the needs of older patients with chronic mental illness in public mental health services

Journal

AGING & MENTAL HEALTH
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 327-334

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13607863.2011.628978

Keywords

needs; chronic mental illness; service delivery

Funding

  1. SESIAHS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To describe the needs of patients aged 50 years and over with chronic mental illness being case managed within a public mental health service, and to determine factors that influence these needs. Method: Patients were recruited from community-based Adult Mental Health (AMH) teams and Specialist Mental Health Services for Older People (SMHSOP) teams. Eligibility criteria included a diagnosis of schizophrenia or mood disorder. Patient, carer and key worker interviews were carried out using the Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE). Results: Of 183 eligible patients, 97 (mean age of 66.4 years) participated, of whom 63 were managed by AMH teams and 34 by SMHSOP teams. The majority (52%) had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, particularly those managed by AMH (71%). Patients self-rated fewer needs overall on the CANE than their key workers or the researcher, and also rated a higher proportion of their needs being met (83%) than the key worker (77%) or researcher (76%). From each perspective, over 80% of psychiatric and around 95% of identified medical needs were being met. The majority of social needs were unmet, with patients reporting only 42%, and key workers only 33%, met needs. The key unmet social needs were company, daily activities and having a close confidant. Key workers, patients and researchers rated SMHSOP service delivery to have significantly less unmet needs. Conclusions: The social needs of older patients with chronic mental illness require greater attention by public mental health services.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available