Review of the Federal Department of Justice Investigation of California State Mental Hospitals

Today we are going to be talking about the investigations in our state hospital system by the United States Department of Justice. In both their reviews of the children\u27s and adult programs at Metropolitan State Hospital in Southern Califomia, as well as the more recent review in Napa State Hospital, the Department of Justice found significant and substantial deficiencies in virtually every aspect of patient care. Sadly, this is not the first time such concerns have been raised. And sadly and alarmingly, since the issuance of these reports, problems have continued, including suicides and homicide. Additionally, as noted in the report on Napa State Hospital, the Department of Justice has alleged that the state denied them access in conducting their review. This is an alarming accusation that needs to be addressed and is one of the purposes of today\u27s hearing. Our goal today is to understand the issues raised in the Department of Justice report, of the department\u27s response to them, what we must do to improve the quality of care in these facilities, and what the implications are if we don\u27t improve the care. I hope we can have a frank discussion about what it will take on all of our parts to create the kind of safe and positive environment I know we all strive for in our state hospitals. And in fact, I represent the right of patients to have that type of positive environment

Review of the Federal Department of Justice Investigation of California State Mental Hospitals

Today we are going to be talking about the investigations in our state hospital system by the United States Department of Justice. In both their reviews of the children\u27s and adult programs at Metropolitan State Hospital in Southern Califomia, as well as the more recent review in Napa State Hospital, the Department of Justice found significant and substantial deficiencies in virtually every aspect of patient care. Sadly, this is not the first time such concerns have been raised. And sadly and alarmingly, since the issuance of these reports, problems have continued, including suicides and homicide. Additionally, as noted in the report on Napa State Hospital, the Department of Justice has alleged that the state denied them access in conducting their review. This is an alarming accusation that needs to be addressed and is one of the purposes of today\u27s hearing. Our goal today is to understand the issues raised in the Department of Justice report, of the department\u27s response to them, what we must do to improve the quality of care in these facilities, and what the implications are if we don\u27t improve the care. I hope we can have a frank discussion about what it will take on all of our parts to create the kind of safe and positive environment I know we all strive for in our state hospitals. And in fact, I represent the right of patients to have that type of positive environment

Planning for incapacity by people with bipolar disorder under the Mental Capacity Act 2005

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provided a variety of legal mechanisms for people to plan for periods of incapacity for decisions relating to personal care, medical treatment, and financial matters. Little research has however been done to determine the degree to which these are actually implemented, and the approach to such advance planning by service users and professionals. This paper looks at the use of advance planning by people with bipolar disorder, using qualitative and quantitative surveys both of people with bipolar disorder and psychiatrists. The study finds that the mechanisms are under-used in this group, despite official policy in support of them, largely because of a lack of knowledge about them among service users, and there is considerable confusion among service users and professionals alike as to how the mechanisms operate. Recording is at best inconsistent, raising questions as to whether the mechanisms will be followed

Freedom and need: The evolution of public strategy for biomedical and health research in England

The optimal support of health-related research and development with public money is a complex challenge. Over the last century, policy makers in England have conceived and implemented a variety of models, ranging from independent, curiosity driven research to needs-based state commissions, and promoting different bodies to oversee scientific work. This paper traces these approaches, identifies the principles that drove them, and discusses their role in shaping policy for publicly funded health research, up to the recent launch of a new research strategy by the Department of Health

Assessing relative spending needs of devolved government: the case of healthcare spending in the UK

The system used to allocate resources to the UK's devolved territories, known as the Barnett formula, takes no account of the relative expenditure needs of the territories. In this paper we investigate the prospects of developing a needs based model for allocating healthcare resources to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We compare the method used by the National Health Service in England to allocate resources geographically within England with the method used by the NHS in Scotland to allocate resources to territorial Health Boards. By applying both approaches to the UK's devolved territories, we are able to examine similarities and differences in the two methods, and explore implications for an assessment of the relative healthcare expenditure need of each territory. The implications for the way in which revenue is distributed to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are discussed