Priorities, “street level bureaucracy” and the community mental health team
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12290029 |
|---|---|
| Authors | John S G Wells, John Wells (0000-0002-9560-8945, King's College London, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 333-342 |
| Publication date | 2007-06-08 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health & Social Care in the Community (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0966-0410 • E-ISSN: 1365-2524 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1365-2524.1997.tb00130.x |
| OpenAlex | W2049686294 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 17 |
| References cited | 44 |
In the United Kingdom a combination of high profile incidents and reports personally critical of mental health policy in general and individual practitioners' actions in particular (Sheppard 1995) highlight the pressures which operate on mental health professionals in the community (Mechanic 1995a). These pressures are exacerbated by policy contradictions and resource limitations. Consequently community mental health practitioners (e.g. psychiatrists, community psychiatric nurses and social workers) can be sensitive to political and managerial agendas which may have a negative impact on their implementation of individual care programs (Marks et al. 1994). Using the concept of ‘street level bureaucracy’ (Lipsky 1980), this paper examines recent literature. It is argued that practitioners' reception and implementation of policy is influenced by the need to balance the tension between four elements: the political and policy imperatives, the agenda of local management, the professional and peer cultures in which practitioners operate and the balance of perceived personal advantage. It is further postulated that managers and policy makers may have a vested interest in not scrutinizing practitioners' implementation of policy too vigorously as a way of deflecting responsibility for its consequences. The ‘Care Programme Approach’ and recent legislative changes regarding community supervision (Department of Health 1995a) highlight the important and sometimes negative consequences for the service user that may result
Bureaucracy · Legislature · Mental health · Political science · Politics · Psychiatry · Public relations · Sociology · Healthcare innovation and challenges · Law · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Psychiatric care and mental health services · Public Administration
Street-Level Bureaucracy, Social Work and the (Exaggerated) Death of Discretion
Closing the Circle
Time, risk and midwife practice
Implementation deficit' and 'street-level bureaucracy
Values in social work law
Digital regulation, enforcement attitudes, and discretionary decision-making of regulatory street-level bureaucrats during a pandemic emergency
Regulating the road of good intentions
What if? Using the law to uphold practice values and standards
I mean, obviously you're using your discretion’
On the evidence for viruses in social work systems
Managerial audit and community mental health
Street-level bureaucracy, management and the corrupted world of service’
Case management for people with psychiatric disabilities in rural Sweden; experiences from the implementation of a national policy
On administrative evil-doing within social work policy and services
Institutional and organisational influence on mental health management in Spanish and Italian primary care
Power, politics and the street-level bureaucrat in Indigenous Australian health
The clinical governance of the soul
Squaring the Circle
To market! To market! A new dawn for community care
The community of strangers
Assessment
The public and professional interface with priority setting in the National Health Service
Mental health policy in England in the 1990s
Power to the people? Involving users and carers in needs assessments and care planning-views from the practitioner
The challenge of managing community mental health teams
Professional Dynamics and the Changing Nature of Medical Work
The Social Context of Mental Illness and Violence
| Citations per year | 0.65 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2000 - 2024 (25) |
| Highly cited | No |