Initial Assessment and Eligibility for Secondary Care Mental Health Services: Not a Simple Equation

Abstract

This paper identifies the challenges of interpreting and implementing appropriate eligibility criteria and assessment processes in adult mental health services, with reference to an inner-city Trust's own protocols. Central guidance, local interpretation and professional judgment are all legitimate contributions, but also confound both the concept and processes of entry to service.

Development of a Housing Eligibility Assessment Scoring Method for low-income urgent repair programs

“…In this present research study, program eligibility criteria refers to requirements that need to be met in order for a program applicant to qualify for urgent housing repair funds. Public organizations are required to clearly define their eligibility criteria, so that potential service users know the rules by which they will be offered or denied services (Firth et al , 2008). When eligibility criteria are too broad and subjective, it raises the expectations of unqualified applicants, and a lot of time is expended in assessing and denying program applicants.…”

“…When eligibility criteria are too broad and subjective, it raises the expectations of unqualified applicants, and a lot of time is expended in assessing and denying program applicants. Firth et al (2008) noted that the organizational paradox is that over-inclusive or opaque criteria can create excessive work and eligibility determination will be unnecessarily influenced by team resources, experiences, and preferences. Firth et al (2008) emphasized that a complicating factor in establishing agreed entry-to-service criteria and matching processes was that the social service department workers in new health and social care trusts were required to assess service users whose needs did not precisely match the new Trusts’ criteria.…”

“…Firth et al (2008) noted that the organizational paradox is that over-inclusive or opaque criteria can create excessive work and eligibility determination will be unnecessarily influenced by team resources, experiences, and preferences. Firth et al (2008) emphasized that a complicating factor in establishing agreed entry-to-service criteria and matching processes was that the social service department workers in new health and social care trusts were required to assess service users whose needs did not precisely match the new Trusts’ criteria. McEvoy (2000) noted that because there were no widely accepted guidance on thresholds for referral to secondary care, community mental health teams became more directly focused on eligibility and gate-keeping.…”

“…Highly restrictive criteria can exclude potential program beneficiaries, while loosely formed and broad criteria can reduce program effectiveness, as populations who do not necessarily have critical needs would be determined as eligible for program benefits (Masoudi et al , 2003). Furthermore, Firth et al (2008) explained that the interpretation of referral and eligibility criteria were often far from what was originally intended by the policy makers. Janzon (1998) emphasized that eligibility criteria needs to be client-centered, based on clear priorities, accompanied by clear guidelines, simple to understand, easy to apply in practice, flexible, precise, and widely-publicized.…”

“…On the other hand, when criteria are overly restrictive, potential qualifying applicants are excluded from the process. Even with specified eligibility criteria, the ten teams within the Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust were using different eligibility methods (Firth et al , 2008). A variety of housing eligibility assessment methods are used by different affordable housing programs for assessing housing conditions and determining eligibility for program funds.…”