Using the National Mental Health Service Planning Framework to inform integrated regional planning: a case study in Tasmania, Australia.

Abstract

Background The aim of this study was to demonstrate the application of a needs-based mental health service planning model in Tasmania, Australia to identify indicative directions for future service development that ensure the equitable provision of mental health services across the State. Methods The activity and capacity of Tasmania’s 2018–19 mental health services were compared to estimates of required care by: (1) generating estimates of required care using the National Mental Health Service Planning Framework (NMHSPF); (2) collating administrative mental health services data; (3) aligning administrative data to the NMHSPF; and (4) comparing aligned administrative data and NMHSPF estimates to identify priority areas for service development. Findings were contextualised using information about service location, population demographics, and upcoming service development. Results Bed-based services capacity reached 85% of the NMHSPF estimate. However, access to certain bed types was inequitable across regional areas. Access to jurisdictional clinical ambulatory team-based services was lowest in the South, while overall full-time equivalent staff capacity reached 58% of the NMHSPF estimate. Access to Primary Health Tasmania (PHT) primary care services was highest in the North West; access to Medicare services was highest in the South. Collectively, activity across primary care (PHT, headspace and Medicare) reached 43% of the NMHSPF estimate. Over half of Community Managed Mental Health Support Services were state-wide services. Conclusions This study demonstrates the application of a needs-based planning model for mental health services. Findings revealed service priority areas across Tasmania and highlight considerations for needs-based planning.

Mental health systems modelling for evidence-informed service reform in Australia

“…The NMHSPF built on earlier Australian needs-based planning models such as Tolkien II (Andrews and Tolkien II Team, 2006) and the New South Wales Mental Health Clinical Care and Prevention (NSW MH-CCP) model (NSW Government Mental Health Branch, 2013). It has been used to support national mental health system reform recommendations (such as those from the Productivity Commission mental health inquiry and Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System), jurisdictional mental health plans (e.g., Queensland Health, 2016; Mental Health Commission, 2019; Government of South Australia, 2019) and integrated joint regional plans developed between PHNs and LHNs (e.g.,Wright et al, 2021; Central and Eastern Sydney Primary Health Network, 2019; Adelaide Primary Health Network, 2020; Gossip et al, 2022).…”

Serious mental illness? Categorical measurement for health service systems

“…The Framework, now operational, incorporates population estimates and other data to arrive at age-banded mental illness severity categories (mild, moderate, severe-standard and severe-complex) based on the level of functional impact and type of health service response needed. The severecomplex group needing intensive multidisciplinary care and inter-agency coordination provided by specialist public mental health services and so could be considered to represent serious mental illness (Gossip et al, 2023). The categorisation system used in the Framework is predominantly transdiagnostic, albeit with accommodation for first-episode psychosis and perinatal mental illness.…”