Even before that integration is completed, Parsons says, primary care providers should be networking with their psych/mental health colleagues. For one thing, a patient’s mental status can have a significant impact on his or her physical health and ability to take care of him- or herself. And for another, should a primary care provider have concerns about a patient’s mental status, having a specialist to call can be a lifeline.
“If you have a feeling that this person needs help, just saying ‘You really need to see a mental health provider’ and leaving it at that is probably not sufficient,” Parsons says.
She recommends knowing what specific resources are available locally, offering them to patients, and being prepared to make a phone call yourself if psych/mental health services are so scarce or overbooked that the patient can’t get an appointment for six or eight weeks. “Having relationships with folks who you can pick up the phone and say ‘I really have this urgent situation; can you see this patient or can you get me somebody who can see them within the next two or three days?’ is probably going to be our best bet,” she says. “And if we can integrate behavioral health on the same site, we have that ready access.”
Whatever the outcome of the latest gun control debate, there is no question that it is shining a spotlight on a critical issue for the US health care system. The lack of adequate care for the mentally ill impacts not only affected individuals, but also the public at large. It is a subject that must be handled with care, but everyone needs to participate in the discussion.
“Sticking our heads in the sand certainly is not the best option. I think we all have to take some responsibility for solving these problems,” Parsons says. “We have to engage all of these folks—the gun lobbyists, the gun control advocates, Congress, local leaders—in dialogue. How do we role model conflict resolution when we take very staunch positions and don’t communicate, don’t collaborate, don’t compromise?”