Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:42:08.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of the ITHACA Toolkit for monitoring human rights and general health care in psychiatric and social care institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2012

J. Randall ,
G. Thornicroft ,
L. Burti ,
H. Katschnig ,
O. Lewis ,
J. Russo ,
T. Shaw ,
K. Wahlbeck  and
D. Rose
J. Randall
Affiliation:
Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London
G. Thornicroft*
Affiliation:
Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London
L. Burti
Affiliation:
Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Italy
H. Katschnig
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Society, Institute for Social Psychiatry, Vienna, Austria
O. Lewis
Affiliation:
Mental Disability Advocacy Center, Budapest, Hungary
J. Russo
Affiliation:
Mental Disability Advocacy Center, Budapest, Hungary
T. Shaw
Affiliation:
Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London
K. Wahlbeck
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health and Welfare THL, Helsinki, Finland
D. Rose
Affiliation:
Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London
*
*Address for correspondence: Professor G. Thornicroft, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background.

Human rights violations are commonly experienced by people in psychiatric and social care institutions. States and private organizations providing such health and social services must comply with international human rights law. Monitoring of such compliance is increasingly recognized as a vital component in ensuring that rights are respected and violations are brought out in the open, remedied and prevented.

Aims.

The Institutional Treatment, Human Rights and Care Assessment (ITHACA) project produced a method to document violations and good practice with the aim of preventing human rights violations and improving general health care practice in psychiatric and social care institutions (www.ithacastudy.eu).

Methods.

A methodological and implementation study conducted across 15 European countries developed and assessed the ITHACA Toolkit in monitoring visits to 87 mental health organizations.

Results.

The toolkit is available in 13 European languages and has demonstrated applicability in a range of contexts and conditions. The information gathered through monitoring visits can document both good practice and areas for improvement.

Conclusions.

The ITHACA Toolkit is an acceptable and feasible method for the systematic monitoring of human rights and general health care in psychiatric and social care institutions that explicitly calls for the participation of service users in the monitoring of human rights violations and general health care practice.

Keywords

Mental healthhuman rightsinstitutionsmonitoringtoolkitrights of persons with disabilities
Type
Original Articles
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 241 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartlett, P, Lewis, O, Thorold, O (2006). Mental Disability and the European Convention on Human Rights. Martinus Nijhoff: Leiden.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2009). Recommendation CM/Rec (2009)3 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Monitoring the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of Persons with Mental Disorder. Council of Europe: Brussels.Google Scholar
Hunt, P (2005). Economic, Cultural and Social Rights. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health. Commission on Human Rights, 61st Session, Item 10 on the provisional agenda. United Nations Economic and Social Council: New York.Google Scholar
Hunt, P, Mesquita, J (2006). Mental disabilities and the human right to the highest attainable standard of health. Human Rights Quarterly 45, 332–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killaspy, H, King, M, Wright, C, White, S, McCrone, P, Kallert, T et al. Study protocol for the development of a European measure of best practice for people with long term mental health problems in institutional care (DEMoBinc). BMC Psychiatry 2009, 9–36.Google Scholar
Killaspy, H, White, S, Wright, C, Taylor, TL, Turton, P, Schutzwohl, M et al. The development of the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care (QuIRC): a measure of best practice for facilities for people with longer term mental health problems. BMC Psychiatry 2011, 11–35.Google Scholar
Mental Disability Advocacy Center (2011). Building the Architecture for Change: Guidelines on Article 33 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Mental Disability Advocacy Centre: Budapest. Retrieved 24 July 2012 from http://mdac.info/en/building_the_architecture_for_change_guidelines_on_article_33_of_the_un_convention_on_the_rights_of_people_with_disabilities.Google Scholar
Mont, D (2007). Measuring Disability Prevalence. World Bank: Washington DC.Google Scholar
Niveau, G (2004). Preventing human rights abuses in psychiatric establishments: the work of the CPT. European Psychiatry 19, 146–154 (available from: PM:15158921).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. United Nations: New York.Google Scholar
Salo, M (2010). Ihmisoikeudet mielenterveys- ja päihdeyksiköissä kokemusarvioinnin kohteina. ITHACA-hankkeen Suomen raportti [User evaluation of human rights in mental health and substance use units. [Country Report for the ITAHCAProject]. Raportti 22/2010. THL Institute for Health and Welfare: Helsinki. Retrieved 24 July 2012 from http://groups.stakes.fi/NR/rdonlyres/DDAAFD9B-BEA0-44F0-8AF6-E51F56371CE5/0/ITHACA_hankkeen_Suomen_Raportti_2010.pdf.Google Scholar
Sayce, L, O'Brian, N (2004). The future of equality and human rights in Britain – opportunities and risks for disabled people. Disability and Society 19, 663–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, A, Beresford, P, Faulkner, A, Nettle, M, Rose, D (eds) (2009). This Is Survivor Research. PCCS Books: Ross-on-Wye.Google Scholar
Thornicroft, G, Rose, D (2005). Mental health in Europe. British Medical Journal 330, 613–614 (available from: PM:15774967).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornicroft, G, Alem, A, Antunes Dos, SR, Barley, E, Drake, RE, Gregorio, G, Hanlon, C, Ito, H, Latimer, E, Law, A, Mari, J, McGeorge, P, Padmavati, R, Razzouk, D, Semrau, M, Setoya, Y, Thara, R, Wondimagegn, D (2010). WPA guidance on steps, obstacles and mistakes to avoid in the implementation of community mental health care. World Psychiatry 9, 67–77 (available from: PM:20671888).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trotter, R, Needle, R, Goosby, E, Bates, C, Singer, M (2001). A methodological model for rapid assessment, response and evaluation: the RARE Program in public health. Field Methods 13, 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations: New York.Google Scholar
World Health Organisation (2005). WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation. World Health Organisation: Geneva.Google Scholar
World Health Organisation (2012). WHO Quality Rights Tool Kit. WHO, Geneva.Google Scholar