Psychiatriki. 2024 May 29. doi: 10.22365/jpsych.2024.009. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
According to international experience, the conditions for the successful outcome of a psychiatric reform are the following: (a) Existence of political will (supporting a national plan with assessment, monitoring, and corrective intervention procedures for structural dysfunctions, etc.). (b) Strong mental health leadership (executive expertise and skills that advance the public health agenda). (c) Challenging the dominance of the biomedical model in therapeutic practice through the promotion of holistic care practices, evidence-based innovative actions, collaborative care, the promotion of recovery culture, and the and the use of innovative digital tools. (d) Ensuring necessary resources over time, so that resources from the transition of the asylum model to a model of sectorial community mental health services “follow” the patient. (e) Strengthening the participation of service recipients and their families in decision-making processes and evaluation of care quality. (f) Practices based on ethical principles (value-based practice) and not only on the always necessary documentation (evidence-based practice).1- 4 Convergent evidence from the “ex post” evaluation of the implementation of the national plan Psychargos 2000-20095 and from the recent rapid assessment of the psychiatric reform by the Ministry of Health and the WHO Athens office (SWOT analysis)6 indicates “serious fragmentation of services, an uncoordinated system that often results in inappropriate service provision, a lack of epidemiological studies and studies concerning the local needs of specific populations, uneven development of services between different regions of the country, a large number of specialized professionals with significant deficits in community psychiatry expertise, a lack of personnel in supportive roles, significant gaps in specialized services (for individuals with autism spectrum disorders, intellectual disabilities, eating disorders, old and new addictions, and community forensic psychiatry services)”. We would also like to highlight lack of coordination and collaboration among different mental health service systems (public primary and secondary service providers, NGOs, municipal services, mental health services of the armed forces, private sector), complete absence of systematic evaluation and monitoring (lack of quality of care indicators, clinical outcomes, epidemiological profile of each service), lack of quality assurance mechanisms and clinical management systems, insufficient number of beds mainly for acute cases, unclear protocols for discharge issuance and ensuring continuity of care, deficient budget for Mental Health in relation to the overall healthcare expenditure (currently 3.3%), and finally, one of the highest rates of involuntary hospitalizations in Europe, which is linked to serious issues concerning the protection of the rights of service users. After the pandemic and the emergence of the silent but expected mental health pandemic, WHO, EU, and the Greek Ministry of Health emphasized the need to adopt a public mental health agenda with an emphasis on community psychiatry in order to address both the old structural dysfunctions and inadequacies of psychiatric reform (regulation 815/1984, Leros I-Leros II plan, Psychargos A & B, incomplete implementation of laws 2071/1992 & 2716/1999, incomplete deinstitutionalization of the remaining psychiatric hospitals). However, it is time to reflect that it is not possible to talk today about the need to update and implement a new national plan to upgrade mental health in the country without answering basic questions, both old and new, about the wider context of its implementation. The transformation of the deficient psychiatric care in the country cannot be completed without the urgent restructuring of the National Health System7 and the reform of the Greek welfare state itself, which is also characterized by irrationality, inequalities, bureaucratic inefficiency, and fragmentation.8 As we should have learned from the bankruptcy and the prolonged economic, social, and cultural crisis in our country, reforms usually pay off in the long term, while the time horizon of the applied policies is narrow and usually reaching the next election. The fact is that in any reform effort, including psychiatry, the political system does not demonstrate the ability to promote transparency, evaluation, stable rules of regulation, reference to a universally applicable legal and institutional framework, the limitation of clientelism and guild resistances. From this point of view, it is necessary to give meaning in the context of Greek psychiatric reform to the professional burnout of the National Health System workers, the lack of motivation and vision, the intrusion into the NGO space by new entities without any connection to the culture of psychiatry reform, the guild resistances of all relevant specialties, the selective use of psychotherapeutic techniques, as trends of discrediting the relief of social and psychological suffering in the field of public mental health. There is an urgent need to understand new pathologies (narcissistic disorders, new forms of addiction, eating disorders, “pathology of emptiness”, adolescent delinquency and suicide, psychosomatic manifestations due to high stress, pathology of fluid social ties, deficient socialization of young people “outside of their algorithms”) through a solid and coherent analysis of the toxic postmodernity culture. In addition to the social determinants of mental health,9 it is necessary in clinical work to also assess the psychological factors, such as uncertainty, conflict, loss of control, and incomplete information, that burden human health.10 In order to reduce the gap between declarations and real life, there is an urgent need to overcome the blind spots of psychiatric reform in the country by establishing internal and external evaluation processes, training young professionals in holistic care and community networking and communication skills, retraining leaders for organizational change, and strengthening the participation of service users in the context of deepening democracy in mental health. As mental health professionals, the object of our work in the community should be the reconstruction of meaning and the fragile or non-existent social bond in subjects who have been cut off from any possible production of meaning and participation in their history. Why should our therapeutic responses be stereotypically repetitive in the face of these complex, radical changes in the meta-context and the new demands of our patients? After all, as the philosopher Ernst Bloch puts it, utopia is “that which does not exist yet.”.
PMID:38814270 | DOI:10.22365/jpsych.2024.009
