英国德比essay代写:参与管理和规划

Keywords:英国德比essay代写

对于用户来说，参与管理和规划是促进反歧视实践和提高社会地位的个人心理健康困难。在这两个信托公司，管理人员报告说，他们保留了对用户的权利，使用自由裁量权征询他们或不在不同的问题，并有相当大的地区差异，用户参与程度。用户组由患者，或以前的患者，代表了最常见的形式在两个信任领域的用户参与。这些团体与信任管理密切合作，改变服务提供，而另一些旨在独立于信任。用户群体表示失望，他们缺乏力量，迫使变化的信任，和一些用户群体选择了与信托业务完全由于缺乏进展和希望渠道能源向国家的竞选活动。信托工作人员应邀评论的方式，用户参与是有益的医疗保健系统。然而，只有少数的例子被引用，但有共识的工作人员之间的利益领域。这些都是在用户参与的活动，反对信任计划，实现翻新的住院单位，监测餐饮和家政服务，妇女的安全政策和NHS和社会服务联合工作的安排。信托工作人员报告的失望程度与困难，让用户参与服务交付，因为他们本来希望。此外，有一种感觉，只有最有声音的用户与强烈的意见，和负面经验的医疗保健系统，激励他们的参与，是“听到”在会议上。也有关注缺乏支付安排的用户谁需要贡献的工作没有财政报酬的信托。付款被劝阻，因为它可能导致福利福利的病人暂停。此外，有一些关注的伦理适用于“工作压力”的活跃用户，谁可能目前正在接受治疗的压力有关的情绪困难。在这项研究中确定的信任用户参与的主要模型是管理咨询现有的用户组。管理者对用户参与的期望和用户喜欢的内容之间存在冲突。管理者更信任的能力，以方便用户参与，临床和护理人员。很少有证据的权力共享的信任和参与不同领域的信托业务是在管理者的自由裁量权。此外，当与用户组协商时，信任将试图保留对信息交换的议程和级别的控制。“
英国德比essay代写:参与管理和规划
Recently, Rutter, Manley, Weaver, Crawford and Fulop (2004) have conducted case studies of user involvement in the planning and delivery of mental health services in two London Primary Care Trusts. The purpose of the study was to identify models of user participation that were practised in the two areas, to identify from both areas the main outcomes and objectives, and to consider the positive and negative aspects of user involvement. Trust employees with responsibilities for user involvement in the two areas were interviewed as part of the research study. In the first Trust, 32 interviews were undertaken; 10 with user groups, 4 with voluntary sector representatives and 18 with Trust staff. In the second Trust, 17 interviews were undertaken; 3 with user groups, 5 with voluntary group representatives and 9 with Trust staff. Chief executives, managers, consultant psychiatrists and ward managers were interviewed as part of the staff sample. Trust staff reported a variety of opinions about the limitations and goals of user participation in health care services. While managers were quite positive about including users, nursing staff were more ambivalent and expressed some reservation about the purposes of user participation. Most staff were concerned about the context of user participation (venues and appropriate discourses), rather than the overall positive impact of users involvement on decision making. Several staff reported concerns about emotional outbursts by users during professional planning meetings and a perception of their potential to disrupt policy and procedure. Furthermore, “A fundamental difference between users and staff was that users felt that their (largely negative) experiences were not marginal, but central to their motivation for involvement, and to their agenda for change. Involvement for users was fundamentally about change in the social status of people with mental health problems, rather than making (sometimes superficial) changes to services” (p 1975). For users, participation in management and planning was about promoting anti-discriminatory practice and elevating the social status of individuals with mental health difficulties. In both Trust’s, the managers reported that they retained rights over the users in terms of using the discretion to consult with them or not on different matters, and there was considerable regional difference in the degree of user participation. User groups led by patients, or former patients, represented the most common form of user participation in both Trust areas. Some of these groups worked closely with Trust management to change service provision, while others aimed to be independent from the Trust. User groups expressed frustration at their lack of power to force changes on the Trust, and some user groups had opted out of dealing with Trust business altogether due to lack of progress and a wish to channel energies towards national campaigning. Trust staff were invited to comment on ways that user participation was beneficial for the health care system. However, only a few examples were cited but there was consensus between staff members in the areas of benefit. These were in the areas of user involvement in campaigns against Trust plans, achieving refurbishment of inpatient units, monitoring of catering and domestic services, women’s safety policies and the integration of the NHS and Social Services ‘joint working’ arrangements. Trust staff reported a level of disappointment associated with the difficulties getting users to participate in service delivery as they would have hoped for. Furthermore, there was a sense that only the most vocal users with strong opinions, and negative experiences of the health care system that motivated their participation, were ‘heard’ at meetings. There was also concern about the lack of payment arrangements for users who were required to contribute to the working of the Trust without financial remuneration. Payment was discouraged because it could lead to suspension of welfare benefits for the patient. Furthermore, there were some concerns about the ethics of apply ‘work like pressure’ to active users, who maybe currently undergoing treatment for stress related emotional difficulties.