Most mental health
service users will be completely unaware that when they are assessed by
Community Mental Health Teams or in hospital their mental health problems and
symptoms are now subjected to an arcane system known as Clustering.
The Department of
Health issued guidelines in October 2011 (a link is here) which proudly
announced:
“2012-13
is the introductory year for what is a major change in the way that mental
health care is currently funded, a shift from block grants to PbR currencies
which are associated with individual service users and their interactions with
mental health services.”
(PbR, by the way,
stands for Payment by Results. Payment by Results is the new way in which local
NHS Trusts will be funded by the GP consortia that are due to replace PCTs in
2013.)
It is the preliminary stage in “introducing
the mental health care clusters as the contract currency for 2012-13 with local
prices. This means that prices will be agreed between commissioners and
providers, and are not set at a national level.”
Mental Health Professionals working within
the NHS are now expected to assign everyone they assess to a specific
“cluster”, using the Mental Health Clustering Tool. This tool has 18 scales.
Examples include “Non-accidental self injury”, “Problems associated with
hallucinations and delusions”, and “Depressed mood and ideation”. The assessor
has to assign a score between 0 (no problem) and 4 (severe to very severe
problem). Depending on these scores, the assessor can then assign each service
user to a cluster.
A cluster is not a diagnosis but rather a
description of an individual’s mental health problems and its impact on their
ability to manage daily living. Someone presenting with moderate depression,
for example, might be assigned to Cluster 3, which is defined as “Non Psychotic
(Moderate Severity)”. Someone with chronic schizophrenia might be assigned to
Cluster 7, “Enduring Non-psychotic Disorders (High Disability)”. Someone with a
borderline or emotionally unstable personality disorder might be assigned to
Cluster 8: “Non-Psychotic Chaotic and Challenging Behaviours”.
I wrote about
Clustering in the Guardian back in January of this year (link here). At the
time of writing that article I was still quite new to clustering. Now, I have
over a year’s experience of clustering service users in Charwood Community
Mental Health Team where I am based. I have also been on further training.
So far, it has become
clear that it is very difficult to use this assessment tool in any sort of
meaningful way. The point of clustering is apparently to assign service users
to the care or treatment package that best meets their identified needs.
However, unless these care packages are known, it is almost impossible to know
which cluster to assign to a specific individual. And these care packages
themselves have not yet been defined, which the training course admitted.
It’s a bit like being
on one of those TV cookery competitions, and being given a pile of ingredients
but without being told what dish you’re supposed to be preparing.
I apologise if this
post has appeared a little dry and boring so far. Imagine what it’s like for
mental health professionals trying to apply clustering to their assessments.
Unfortunately, even though inserting sharp objects into one’s own rectum might
appear a preferable pastime to using the Mental Health Clustering Tool, it is
now not only a compulsory requirement, but it will also have a profound effect
on the funding of mental health trusts.
And this, of course,
is what clustering is really about. It actually has little to do with actually trying
to identify the needs of service users, and then providing care and treatment
according to those needs. That is the old, unfashionable, “needs led” approach.
Over 20 years ago,
when Charwood CMHT was first created, the team spent a considerable time trying
to identify what a CMHT was for. It was, of course, to try to meet the needs of
people with severe and enduring mental health problems, as well as those in
acute distress where there was a severe risk to that person or their ability to
function. Our services were therefore developed to try to meet the needs of
those individual service users.
One example of this
was the identification that many people presenting to the CMHT with depression,
self harming and suicidal behaviours had significant histories of childhood
abuse. If all we did was give them some antidepressants and some supportive
contact until the crisis was over and then discharge them, we realised that
these people would keep coming back. So we started to develop specialist
counselling within the team that was designed to address their underlying
problems. If the reasons for a person’s low mood or urges to self harm were
dealt with and resolved, then not only would they feel much better, but they
would also be less likely to relapse.
Over the intervening
years, there have been many changes to the shape and organisation of community
mental health care. 20 years ago, the CMHT was part of Charwood District Health
Authority. Then it became Charwood Health Partnerships Trust. Then it became a Mental
Health Foundation Trust.
Other teams were
created: the Early Intervention in Psychosis Team, the Assertive Outreach Team,
the Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team. Some of those changes made our job
a little easier; some made it more difficult. But despite those difficulties,
we always tried to keep the needs of the service user at the centre of what we
did. We didn’t always succeed in this, but we always tried.
Clustering and Payment
by Results, while giving lip service to the concept of service user led service
provision, in fact does nothing of the sort. The “customer” is not the service
user. Under this new model, the service user, or rather their cluster, explicitly
becomes a unit of currency. So mental health services become a market place in
which this currency can be spent.
The real “customers”
in all this are the new GP consortia. With their cluster currency, they can
shop around, looking for the best deals. The potential implications of all this
are that interested businesses can cherry pick certain treatment packages.
Many Tesco stores have
pharmacies and even dentists. What’s to stop them offering cut price treatment
packages for Cluster 3 (Non-Psychotic, Moderate Severity) or even Cluster 11
(Ongoing Recurrent Psychosis, Low Symptoms)?
CMHT’s could simply
become places where people are assessed and sorted, a bit like an egg grading
production line, before being farmed off to any of a range of private or
voluntary organisations offering the cheapest prices.
But how many of these
organisations would see the commercial potential in Cluster 14 (Psychotic
Crisis)? And what about Cluster 8, Non-Psychotic Chaotic and Challenging
Disorders – after all, people with personality disorders aren’t very rewarding
to work with are they? They’re difficult and challenging, take a long time to
treat, and above all can be very expensive in terms of services. They’ll
probably be left for what’s left of NHS mental health services to pick up.
Is this really what
the changes in the NHS are all about: a means of privatising the NHS by
stealth, using the GP’s as unwitting stooges, and at the same time cutting back
on funds? Ultimately, these “currencies” are nothing more than Monopoly money;
the Government can and will control their actual value.
And despite the
Government maintaining that NHS spending is increasing, in spite of the
evidence of cutbacks that people working in the NHS are faced with every day,
the actual evidence is that, certainly in mental health, funding has decreased.
The Observer on Sunday 27.09.12. stated: “After inflation, expenditure fell by 1% in
2011-12, dropping by £65m to £6.63bn, according to reports published by the
department of health. Older people's mental health was hit hardest, seeing a
real-terms spending decrease of 3.1% to £2.83bn in 2011-12.”
Phew! Perhaps a bit
radical for the Masked AMHP! The trouble is, I’ve endured and survived so many
changes to service provision over the 35+ years I’ve worked in social care. I
fear that this is one change too many.