| Popis: |
Purpose Description and analysis of the effects and side-effects of integrated mental health care in the Netherlands. Context of case Due to a number of large-scale mergers, Dutch mental health care has become an illustration of integration and coherence of care services. This process of integration, however, has not only brought a better organisation of care but apparently has also resulted in a number of serious side-effects. This has raised the question whether integration is still the best way of reorganising mental health care. Data sources Literature, data books, patients and professionals, the advice of the Dutch Commission for Mental Health Care, and policy papers. Case description Despite its organisational and patient-centred integration, the problems in the Dutch mental health care system have not diminished: long waiting lists, insufficient fine tuning of care, public order problems with chronic psychiatric patients, etc. These problems are related to a sharp rise in the number of mental health care registrations in contrast with a decrease of registered patients in first-level services. This indicates that care for people with mental health problems has become solely a task for the mental health care services (monopolisation). At the same time, integrated institutions have developed in the direction of specialised medical care (homogenisation). Monopolisation and homogenisation together have put the integrated institutions into an impossible divided position. Conclusions and discussion Integration of care within the institutions in the Netherlands has resulted in withdrawal of other care providers. These side-effects lead to a new discussion on the real nature and benefits of an integrated mental health care system. Integration requires also a broadly shared vision on good care for the various target groups. This would require a radicalisation of the distinction between care providers as well as a recognition of the different goals of mental health care. |
