Abstract
This paper examines the philosophical substructure to the theoretical conflicts that permeate contemporary mental health care in the UK. Theoretical conflicts are treated here as those that arise among practitioners holding divergent theoretical orientations towards the phenomena being treated. Such conflicts, although steeped in history, have become revitalized by recent attempts at integrating mental health services that have forced diversely trained practitioners to work collaboratively together, often under one roof. Part I of this paper examines how the history of these conflicts can be understood as a tension between, on the one hand, the medical model and its use by the dominant profession of psychiatry, and on the other, those alternative models and practitioners in some way differentiated from the medical model camp. Examples will be given from recent policy and research to highlight the prevalence of this tension in contemporary practice. Part II of this paper explores the deeper commonalities that lay beneath the theoretical conflict outlined in Part I. These commonalities will be shown to be apart of a captivating framework that has continued to grip the conflict since its inception. By exposing this underlying framework--and the motivations inherent therein--the topic of integration appears in wholly different light, allowing a renewed philosophical basis for integration to emerge.
Highlights
In the UK there has been much talk of “integrating” mental health services in recent years–a topic usually couched within a broader government agenda of assimilating health and social care
In the UK, pathways towards integration have been paved by the Health Act Flexibilities (1999), which removed financial and legal constraints hindering service integration, and the Health and Social Care Act (2001), which created Care Trusts aimed to deliver a whole spectrum of services within a single organization
The topic of service integration gains much of its appeal by appearing to make sense virtually “across the board,” from the politicians and commissioners focused on partnerships and integrated budgets, to the practitioners focused on integrated working and service
Summary
In the UK there has been much talk of “integrating” mental health services in recent years–a topic usually couched within a broader government agenda of assimilating health and social care. By “theoretical orientations” I wish to connote those views generally held among practitioners, either as a result of educational training or area of work (or both) Nowhere is this arguably more prevalent than in the formation of “community mental health teams” (CMHTs)–a hallmark of service integration over the past decade–whereby diversely trained practitioners are placed under one roof and, ideally, in regular contact with each other to exchange ideas and skills. As promising as this multidisciplinary, team-based approach may seem, the reality within such teams is. Such conflicts have a tendency to overlay themselves onto philosophical chasms; by understanding these deeper differences–and their commonalities–new light may be shed on supposedly intractable barriers of thought or opinion
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
