Advertisement

Negotiating Resources During CMHT Team Meetings: Exploring Requests for Joint Working

  • Sifiso MhlangaEmail author
  • Timothy Auburn
Chapter
Part of the The Language of Mental Health book series (TLMH)

Abstract

It is ever more evident that clinicians within the NHS face an increasing demand to deliver a caring and compassionate service with fewer resources. The aim of this chapter is to describe my experience of exploring how clinicians initiated and designed requests for joint working during CMHT allocation meetings. This chapter will also examine how the requests were responded to by the chair of the meeting and hence the role of the chair in gatekeeping the way resources are managed.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the clinicians and managers within the CMHTs that took part in this research. I would also like to thank the Adult Mental Health Psychology Team, in particular the Lead CMHT Psychologist, Dr Helen Brotherton, for their support throughout this project.

References

  1. Antaki, C., Barnes, R., & Leudar, I. (2005). Self-disclosure as a situated interactional practice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(2), 181–199.  https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604x15733.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Butler, J. (2005). Monitoring community mental health team caseloads: A systematic audit of practitioner caseloads using a criterion-based audit tool. Advancing Practice in Bedfordshire, 2(3), 95–105.Google Scholar
  3. Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Department of Health. (2002) Mental health policy implementation guide: Community mental health teams. London: DoH.Google Scholar
  5. Fox, B. (2015). On the notion of pre-request. Discourse Studies, 17(1), 41–63.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614557762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Griffiths, L. (2001). Categorising to exclude: The discursive construction of cases in community mental health teams. Sociology of Health & Illness, 23(5), 678–700.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Oxford: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Independent Mental Health Taskforce to NHS England. (2016). The five year forward view for mental health. Retrieved from https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Mental-Health-Taskforce-FYFV-final.pdf. Accessed on 28 June 2018.
  9. Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lerner, G. H. (Ed.). (2004). Conversation analysis. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  11. Onyett, S. (2002). Teamworking in mental health. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Sands, N. (2009). An exploration of clinical decision making in mental health triage. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 23(4), 298–308.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2008.08.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Silverman, D., & Perakyla, A. (1990). AIDS counselling: The interactional organisation of talk about “delicate” issues. Sociology of Health & Illness, 12(3), 293–318.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. West, M. A. (1994). Effective teamwork. Leicester: British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
  17. Zinken, J., & Rossi, G. (2016). Assistance and other forms of cooperative engagement. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 20–26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leicestershire Partnership TrustLeicesterUK
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of PlymouthPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations