Losing your mind - The greatest fear known to mankind.

[SWM]

i think Crisis team is Slightly different, we have crisis team too, and they provide a similar service to the one you describe.

EIP is focused more on engagement and intervention of people with first episode psychosis before they are diagnosed. i was thinking they would be a good source for you to gain data and information for your research.

Teams in the NHS will be easy to locate through the NHS websites and there will be people in the organisation that you could contact, i am sure. i could help point you in the right direction if you would like?

About EIP from source: http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/25/4/146
Early intervention in psychosis is a strategy for which there is increasing theoretical and
pragmatic justification. Many studies have been published describing the benefits of early intervention as carried out by specialised and innovative projects. The present paper describes how a generic community mental health team (CMHT), covering a population of 50 000, introduced strategies for early intervention with no extra funding. The team worked together to change old attitudes and practices. A style of intervention was developed to engage with and keep in contact with people with recent onset psychosis. This appears to be achievable — and this model may be an alternative to the setting up of specialised teams.

The early intervention movement

International interest in this area has grown rapidly in the past 10 years, with progress being presented in a supplement to the British Journal of Psychiatry (1998, 172, Suppl. 33). Much of the rationale for early intervention comes from changing views of schizophrenia. The old Kraepelinian idea of gradual and inevitable decline has been challenged. It has been observed that on many measures the illness reaches its peak of severity after 2-5 years, after which the level of disability remains the same or may decrease — the ‘plateau effect’ (McGlashen, 1988). Long-term outcome studies (Mason et al, 1996; Warner, 1994) have confirmed the heterogeneity of outcome in schizophrenia.

Many people who develop psychotic illness go untreated for long periods — 1-2 years on average. This untreated period may set in train processes — biological, psychological and social — that add greatly to the subsequent chronicity of the illness. Psychosis may be ‘toxic’ to the brain. Also, social and psychological damage done may be irreversible. The ‘critical period’ hypothesis (Birchwood et al, 1998) suggests that given these new insights into the illness there may be a window of opportunity for intervening early.

Early intervention is used to describe two different things. In this paper it refers to a strategy for treating early psychotic illness as quickly and effectively as possible. It involves shortening the duration of untreated psychosis and tackling the problems of non-engagement with services. It is thus a secondary prevention strategy. A second, more ambitious, early intervention strategy involves trying to intervene with people before the psychosis develops. This is an exciting prospect but is not beyond the research stage — and is not discussed here.

[ozziemate]

Early intervention is an extremely vexatious area I would imagine, even though it is certainly one worth seriously considering if certain signs are present in a persons behaviour and social function.
IMO what makes early intervention so difficult is that it requires a predetermination of what "normal" social function and beliefs are. This leads to a potential for over control over a persons freedom to have those moments of "craziness" as they move from one state to another growing as they do.

If enshrined in legislation with a code or criteria installed we would have a situation that was well and truly open to abuse and that will never be accepted for any length of time by any culture. Even now in most Western countries the standard admission practices and first diagnosis is a hugely controversial area for patient, family and friends. [ The suffering being so intense as it were this is not suprising]
However I agree there needs to be some sort of early intervention that is improved over what we currently have and I guess this is more a question of educating the public and parents as to what to look for and what to do if there are concerns. This is of course already the case but possibly improving this will make a difference.
As I mentioned in another thread topic "normality" is not the "average mean" as it consists of all the "standard deviations" from the "mean" to create the "mean". In other words Normality in to days world includes normal behaviour such as you would expect from humanity, war , violence, envy, jealousy, racism, bigotry, chauvinism, love, beauty, passion, joy, and all the rest of the things that makes us such a "colorful" yet painful race at times.

example:
It is quite normal to to be threatened by a "drunk" on a suburban train at least once a week but by the same token it is quite normal to have a trouble free ride for 4 days of the week if you can see what I am getting at.
Normality does not equate to "acceptable" or "nice" or any other qualifier...as it encompasses a whole range of experiences.

So setting a pre-requirement for early intervention is bound to be hugely confrontational and full of conflict.
Personally I think we in the West are expecting way too much of our children and in doing so create a situation where the "norm" is a university degree, a flash house and a nest full of children...etc etc.. Thus many grow up with a massive inferiority complex and try to over achieve leading to ultimate poor results and disatisfaction. Confusing the "ideal" with the "norm"

A significant issue and one deserving of much discussion on it's own I tend to feel.













 

[pljames]

I feel that fear alone of fearing to lose ones mind is a catalyst in itself. We are what we think and believe. Thoughts please. pljames