Introduction F-ACT is a flexible version of Assertive Community Treatment to deliver care in a changing intensity depending on needs of individuals with severe mental illnesses (Van Veldhuizen, 2007). In 2016 a number of the FACT-teams in the Dutch region of Utrecht moved to locations in neighborhoods and started to work as one network team together with neighborhood based facilities in primary care (GP’s) and in the social domain (supported living, social district teams, etc.). This should create better chances on clinical, social and personal recovery of service users. Objectives This study describes the implementation, obstacles and outcomes for service users. The main question is whether this Collaborative Mental Health Care in the Community produces better outcome than regular FACT. Measures include (met/unmet) needs for care, quality of life, clinical, functional and personal recovery, and hospital admission days. Methods Data on care utilization regarding the innovation are compared to regular FACT. Qualitative interviews are conducted to gain insight in the experiences of service users, their family members and mental health care workers. Changes in outcome measures of service users in pilot areas (N=400) were compared to outcomes of users (matched on gender and level of functioning) in regular FACT teams in the period 2015-2018 (total N=800). Results Data-analyses will take place from January to March 2019. Initial analyses point at a greater feeling of holding and safety for service users in the pilot areas and less hospital admission days. Conclusions Preliminary results support the development from FACT to a community based collaborative care service.
ABSTRACT This study investigates how perceptions of radicalisation and co-occurring mental health issues differ between mental health care and the security domain, and how these perceptions affect intersectoral collaboration. It is generally thought that intersectoral collaboration is a useful strategy for preventing radicalisation and terrorism, especially when it concerns radicalised persons with mental health issues. It is not clear, however, what perceptions professionals have of radicalisation and collaboration with other disciplines. Data was obtained from focus groups and individual interviews with practitioners and trainers from mental health care and the security domain in the Netherlands. The results show a lack of knowledge about radicalisation in mental health care, whereas in the security domain, there is little understanding of mental health issues. This leads to a mad-bad dichotomy which has a negative effect on collaboration and risk management. Improvement of the intersectoral collaboration by cross-domain familiarization, and strengthening of trust and mutual understanding, should begin with the basic training of professionals in both domains. The Care and Safety Houses in the Netherlands offer a sound base for intersectoral collaboration. Future professionals from different domains ought to be familiarized with each other’s possibilities, limitations, tasks, and roles.
