Distribution of case-load in community mental health teams

Abstract

Aims and MethodAn audit project was carried out in a mental health trust in North-West London on two successive years to determine the average case-load size of defined severe mental illness for each professional discipline.ResultsThe average case-load for non-consultants varied from 16 (for occupational therapists) through to 98 patients (for senior house officers). Community psychiatric nurses had an average case-load of 21 and consultants had an estimated average case-load of between 185 and 317 patients. The proportion of patients with severe mental illness ranged from 49% to 67%.Clinical ImplicationsThe case-loads of consultants in community health teams are too large to exercise the statutory duties of a responsible medical officer and, therefore, need revision.

Community mental healthcare for people with severe personality disorder: narrative review

“…Moreover, owing to the often turbulent course of treatment and the difficulties of the patients involved, interpersonal problems between patients and professionals easily arise in CMHC. As staff members are not always specifically trained in the management of such (counter)transference, and community mental health centres tend to be busy and somewhat overburdened institutions, 25,[61][62][63] adverse reactions are likely. In particular, staff who primarily work with major Axis I disorders (e.g.…”

Roles of general adult psychiatrists in follow-up clinics

“…Rathod et al (2000) had found frequent reports of anxiety and depressive symptoms in psychiatrists related to the stress of working in psychiatry. An audit in London had revealed exceptionally large caseloads of community consultant psychiatrists (Tyrer et al, 2001).…”

Identifying co-occurring substance use disorders in community mental health centres. Tailored approaches are needed

“…A low participation rate is quite common in clinical studies (142,238,239). This might be explained by the considerable workload in most clinical practices (240), misconceptions about the trial, variable interpretation of eligibility criteria, or paternalism (142). It might also depend on how well the study was implemented in the clinics (142,241).…”