Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the challenges that are experienced by staff responsible for commissioning liaison psychiatry services and to establish if these are shared by other health professionals.

Using a mixed-methods design, the findings from a mental health commissioner workshop (n = 12) were used to construct a survey that was distributed to health care professionals using an opportunistic framework (n = 98).

Four key themes emerged from the workshop, which was tested using the survey. The importance of secure funding; a better understanding of health care systems and pathways; partnership working and co-production and; access to mental health clinical information in general hospitals. There was broad convergence between commissioners, mental health clinicians and managers, except in relation to gathering and sharing of data. This suggests that poor communication between professionals is of concern.

There were a small number of survey respondents (n = 98). The sampling used an opportunistic framework that targeted commissioner and clinician forums. Using an opportunistic framework, the sample may not be representative. Additionally, multiple pairwise comparisons were conducted during the analysis of the survey responses, increasing the risk that significant results were found by chance.

A number of steps were identified that could be applied in practice. These mainly related to the importance of collecting and communicating data and co-production with commissioners in the design, development and monitoring of liaison psychiatry services.

This is the first study that has specifically considered the challenges associated with the commissioning of liaison psychiatry services.

LIBRARY Association elections occur shortly and this impels us to repeat the somewhat musty axiom that men, and women now, get the government they deserve. Such axioms, however, apply perhaps more to political and other public elections in a democracy than to those of professional bodies, or semi‐professional ones like our own. Libraries should have their policies framed and pursued by the best minds available to them. It may be that these come to us through the Branches and Sections for, clearly, the candidates who leap to the mind as having national status, and compel our votes, must be a limited number. Our voting is not much assisted in many cases by the bare list of candidates' names and those of their nominators—even when the latter are known names—which are issued officially but it is not clear how this can be bettered. The A.A.L. usually issues a sort of Who's Who of its candidates and other sections might well do the same. There is still a danger that one type of librarianship may dominate the L.A. merely because it attracts a large number of the votes of junior members. It is not so great as it was; the University and Research Section, for example, commands about one thousand votes we are told, enough, if cast for their chosen candidates, to make their election probable. The Section, we note, invites its members to consider individually whether he or she could be a candidate and adds, “It is not compulsory to cast all the votes available … members who do not know enough candidates may still make effective use of their votes by supporting the candidates they do know.” In any case what is rather depressing in past experience is that not more than 12% of voters use their votes for any candidate; no elected candidate for some years past has represented the L.A. at large. We hope librarians will alter this state of affairs.