So next week, I’m going to a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Mental Health. I’m not a scheduled speaker, but I’m hoping to get a chance to make a few points in the panel discussion. This is roughly what I want to say, but I thought it would be good to get some feedback before I went in.
Pretty much every week, we get a report lacerating our care of children and young people with mental health problems. This time, Youth Access points out the level of unmet need, last week it was the NSPCC. And, as always, the government responded with two things. The ‘historic’increase in funding, and the reform programme instigated by the ‘future in mind’ report.
Let me take these in turn. The increase will, by 2020, have restored funding for CAMHS (child and adolescent mental health services) to around 2010 levels. So a historic rise will follow an unprecedented fall. In any case, given that the money is not ring fenced, or in fact new money at all, there is evidence that it’s not reaching CAMHS at all in many areas.
But even if this money got through, it’s not enough to serve the need using our current model. The consensus is that only about a quarter of young people with a mental health problem get specialist mental health care, and that’s with everyone currently in CAMHS working flat out, so you’d either have to quadruple funding, or make everyone work four times faster, to serve the population need.
But doesn’t ‘future in mind’ offer a new vision for CAMHS? Yes and no. It’s a strange document, and I say that as someone involved in writing it. On the one hand it sets up a very efficient ‘engine’ for specialist CAMHS to give time-limited, evidence based intervention via the CYP IAPT programme. It talks a lot about counselling in schools.But outside of this, it offers mainly aspirations and wishful thinking.
The reason this is a problem is not because CYP IAPT is a bad programme. For delivery of specific interventions for specific problems, it’s great. But at present it only really addresses mood disorders and offers parenting courses. Add to this the clear guidance and increased funding for eating disorders, the focus on counselling in schools, and the increased resources for inpatient CAMHS, and it’s easy to see the groups that may, eventually, do well. Broadly, it’s adolescents presenting with anxiety, sadness and anorexia. This is, in many ways, a great thing. But it’s not enough.
Most people reading this will be aware of the much used statistic that shows that 10% of children have a diagnosable mental health problem. It’s not well known, and needs to be, that half of this number have not mood disorders, but various degrees of conduct problems, in other words, behavioural problems. This group have been almost entirely airbrushed out of the picture. Also, in practice, young people whose mood problems are mixed in with social vulnerability and special educational needs usually cannot access IAPT effectively. Add in children with mental health problems presenting either as physical symptoms, or in the context of chronic conditions, and you can see that a broader vision is required.
Another thing has struck me recently. When you talk to someone who had, for whatever reason, a troubled youth, from which they recovered, treatment does figure, but care is so much more important. What I mean by this is someone, be it a parent, a teacher, a youth worker, whoever, consistently holding the person in mind, and looking out for them, consistently and unconditionally over a period of time. It’s not at all clear that the new IAPT engine is very good at this sort of care. And, in the words of one senior civil servant, it’s ‘the only game in town’.
So we have a paradox. Everyone thinks that only specialist treatment counts as help- for example the Centre for Mental Health present delays in accessing CAMHS as ‘children with mental health problems wait a decade for help’. There isn’t enough specialist treatment for everyone, there can’t be, and the services that exist are narrowing themselves into particular areas. But what actually helps long term is care.
Is care enough? Sometimes clearly not, but if informed by adequate training (of professionals or parents), integrated across agencies and informed by advice from, and consultation with specialists, then really very often difficulties can be contained outside specialist settings. However, because parents and professionals feel disempowered, opportunities are lost waiting for a magic cure that, more often than not, just isn’t there.
We need badly to empower parents, non-CAMHS professionals, and young people themselves to be able to support these needs in the long-term.
So we need specialist treatment services, but only in the context of a wider local mental health support system. I can’t give you an immediate blueprint for this, but here are some ideas:
- Mental health to be taught in schools as part of compulsory PHSE
- Universal access to parent training and support.
- All local health and well-being boards to have responsibility for promoting cyp mental health
- Commissioning budgets pooled across health and local authorities to prevent duplication and gaps in provision.
- A ‘local offer’, analogous to the local special educational needs offer, developed as an extension of current transformation plans.
- CQC/OFSTED inspection of local CYP mental health systems, focusing on collaboration and prevention
- Improve information sharing by changing professional cultures and putting parents in charge, using informed consent to bypass restrictions.
- Appropriate mental health training for all professionals working with children, building on the work of MindEd.
- Local, funded strategic networks including parent and young people, as well as voluntary sector, monitoring the offer and promoting accountability for services.
- CAMHS specialist services to be funded to provide consultation to other agencies locally.
- Work undertaken to adapt NICE guidance to educational settings e.g. for conduct problems.
- Schools exclusions guidance examined to ensure that all pupils are properly assessed for underlying difficulties before permanent exclusion.
It might be argued that all of this is very ambitious, but it builds on existing structures, and I would argue it is much more concrete that the ‘should’ and ‘ought to’ that Future in Mind offers outside its core business.
Anyway, that’s what I think.