It’s #TimeToTalk about #HarryPotterBookNight – The reality of 11 years in a cupboard

Keir provides consultation, therapy and training to help people with experiences like Harry’s, via www.beamconsultancy.co.uk

It is February 7th and this auspicious day brings together 2 great celebrations.  Firstly it is #TimeToTalk day and secondly it is Harry Potter Book Night.  At first glance there is no obvious connection but….lets take a close look. 

Time to talk day “is all about bringing together the right ingredients, to have a conversation about mental health”.  Last year I wrote a piece about the value of talking – not so much going to services and asking for help, but sharing some of the burden that we carry with those around us.  I took a bit of flack for writing it, partly because I think I lost sight of the privileged position I inhabit – I’ve led a life that has given me the conviction that I’m worth something, and I know that there are people around me who are interested in me and want to help.  It is a lot harder for people who haven’t had these gifts and I know full well that getting help isn’t as simple as asking for it.  What I wanted to get across last year is the relief that can come from sharing your worries with people. 

I work in a therapeutic community and for all the times I’ve seen people struggle with something that ‘cant be said’, not once have I seen people experience anything like the rejection they expected.  Equally in my own life, the things that I thought were too hideous to be unveiled seemed to lose a few warts when brought into the light.  Too many people will kill themselves without ever sharing any of their despair and I’d urge everyone to try to make an effort to make mental health (or ill health) something that can be talked about.  That might mean taking a risk and sharing something with people you trust, more importantly it might mean letting the people you care about know that that conversation would be ok.  

So this is all very worthy, but what does this have to do with Harry Potter?  I loved the Harry Potter books and my children are now picking up my old books to follow the adventures of the hero of the wizarding world.  Harry has a range of people who care for him and he inspires them to be a force of good in their lives.  

My experience of the world tells me that Harry is in a relatively unique position.  His parents died in his infancy and he was placed in the care of the pantomime villain-like Dursley family.  He spends the first 11 years of his life living in a cupboard under the stairs.  He is treated like a servant by the adults and bullied by his stronger, bigger cousin.  For 11 years he is constantly criticised, belittled and told that everything is his fault.  He is punished for trivial misdemeanours by being locked in the cupboard.  His birthday is never marked and his clothes are the massive hand me downs of his larger cousin.  We might imagine this leads to further bullying in school.  These tend not to be the ingredients for a charismatic leader.  

I work with a number of people who have had similar childhoods to Harry.  They didn’t go to school and make friends, instead they went to school feeling utterly worthless and fully deserving of any mistreatment doled out to them.  Their relationships with their peers and teachers were shaped by their core belief that they were insignificant, that no one would be interested in them, and that any interest that was shown was only to humiliate them more later.  The self hatred they experienced led to them acting as if they were deserving of hate.  They would hurt themselves or let others hurt or use them.  Their experience of others led them to believe that they shouldn’t be in the world.  Sometimes they sought death but even in the best of times (which were few) death wasn’t something to run away from.  Sometimes they would connect with another person but their conviction that they were unlovable led them to acting as if that was true.  It could also lead to them spending time with people who treated them like they thought they should be treated, because care and kindness felt too wrong.  They often end up with a diagnosis that labels them as being flawed in some way when all they have done is learn what the world has taught them.  

Harry made friends in his first year of senior school.  He also found adults who cared for him and one in particular who became something of a father figure.  At the end of the first school year this father figure sent him back to the people who kept him in a cupboard.  The argument was that it stopped him from being killed.  The reality would probably be that he would end up wanting to die.  

We cant expect little Harrys to tell us about their misery and neglect.  It’s more than likely that they  won’t know any different.  We need to keep our eyes out for the children who are continuously sad, the children who are never made to feel special and who are dressed in ways that could only bring humiliation.  When we see such things, it time to talk.  When little Harry’s are talked of as being disordered, its time to talk.  When there is no help for people like Harry, or the help only makes things worse, it might be time to shout. 

Thanks to @hoppypelican for helping me shape the ideas for this blog.  

Keir provides consultation, therapy and training to help people with experiences like Harry’s, via www.beamconsultancy.co.uk

Advertisements

Risk Management Begins at Home

Keir provides therapy, training and consultancy via www.beamconsultancy.co.uk

For a while now I’ve been writing about the impact of overly defensive and restrictive practices on the people that I work with (like here and here).  The usual story that I tell is of people being at risk in the community but that risk increasing massively when in hospital.  Unable to see that the ‘help’ seems to putting the service user in greater danger, the answer is seen to be more restriction, greater security and eventually a few years locked rehab unit.  

While many people can recognise the pattern described above, it’s not something that gets promoted a great deal in services where the message of ‘doing whatever it takes’ to keep people safe is often repeated.  It was interesting then to read the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act and to see  Sir Simon Wessely expanding on these very themes right at the beginning of the document.  

My MSc dissertation (which I will publish at some point) concluded that it was fear of what clinicians might be blamed for that led to some of the most restrictive practices in the organisation.  The MHA review begins by talking about Fear – 

“Professionals are fearful that unless they adopt a cautious, risk averse approach to their patients, they will find themselves being publicly shamed for those occasions when those same people cause serious harm to themselves or others”

While it is rarely said out loud, this means that people who are in services to receive care and support, can instead be viewed as people who are dangerous to those who should care for them.  The danger is not so much about what service users might do to a clinician (although this fear is not uncommon) but what clinicians might be blamed for.  The service user moves from being a focus of support, to a threat that can damage or destroy a clinician.  It is unsurprising then that the way service users experience ‘care’ is often not perceived as kindness. 

One way that clinicians can rid themselves of any blame for the actions of those in their care is to pass the responsibility for their care onto others.  I have observed and been part of too many unenthusiastic interactions where someone has been referred for an assessment just so that someone else can make a decision (Sometimes with the full knowledge that it’s a waste of time, but at least it’s the other team that has said No rather than us).  It is dispiriting for all concerned and can too often lead to an inappropriate level of restriction because anything less restrictive ‘isn’t worth losing my badge over’.  Bethany’s dad (@jeremyH09406697) is an avid campaigner against restrictive practice and his experiences seem to echo Wessley’s sentiments that –

”some people with a learning disability, autism or schizophrenia are being “warehoused” as we now call it in locked rehab wards, or unsuitable long stay wards which exacerbate and not ease their problems”

I wish that the chair of the review saying that what we do to people in the name of safety is making things worse had excited the media and society a bit more.  Sadly at the time it was released we were too focused on whether to throw rocks or olive branches towards Europe.  

“So whilst fear of the mentally ill has decreased in the public, parliament and media, a different kind of fear has increased – the fear of making a faulty risk assessment that influences many professionals.”  

The consequence of this is that for many professionals, risk management has “slipped into ‘managing risk to themselves”.  This makes sense as the consequences for a wrong decision can be catastrophic, but to look after ourselves before the person we are being paid to care for is a perversion of our duty of care.  

Wessely suggests that this practice can explain some of the rise in detentions under the mental health act, the sterile nature of many inpatient units and some of the more baffling “just in case” interventions that can take place (No shoe laces for someone with no history of ligaturing?).  I agree with him.  He goes on to suggest that clinicians and services need help from the government and the law to ensure that ‘positive risk’ (which can often mean anything other that the most restrictive practice) is supported.  I hope this can happen, but at the moment, its only @normanlamb I ever see talking about this issue.  

Much of my work over the past few years has been around helping organisations question and avoid some of the more restrictive options available when caring for people who cope in ways that can be dangerous to them.  There’s a range of things that can be done to relieve some of the anxiety in the system and to ensure that the needs of the service user are kept at the forefront of the minds of the people involved in their care.  I may expand on these in future posts but briefly…

  • Too often decisions about how to manage someones risk are made without them.  When they are made an equal partner in decision making, most people can describe their wishes and aims in ways that can reassure people.  We don’t need to agree with people’s decisions, but if we give people all the information at our disposal then we should respect what they want and think about how to support them with their goals.  Where the service user isn’t able to articulate a view, it’s useful to have the input of an Expert by Experience who can help staff teams make sense of why people do what they do.  

 

  • We are often quite poor at giving people information.  I’ve never had anyone respond to the rationale “it’s for your own good”, but I have had people respond to genuine dilemmas where we weigh up pro’s and cons together.  

 

  • We can often have a fantasy about what ‘the next level up’ will be like.  In my experience the extra level of restriction either exacerbates the current difficulties or needs to use increasingly potent cocktails of medication to achieve the desired response.  The intensive therapy supposedly on offer is rarely available and when it is, there’s little benefit from being forced to do therapy.

 

  • Clinicians should never feel that they’re alone in making decisions.  The backing of senior managers and most importantly the service user themselves can take away a lot of anxiety.

 

  • We need to learn from the past.  If someone presents for the 20th time we need to use the knowledge that we have rather than act as if it’s the first time it has happened.  Thinking about crisis when not in crisis is essential and being able to communicate the plans we have made so that people aren’t ‘thinking on the spot’ is really useful too.

 

  • A good risk formulation can again take away a lot of anxiety.  This can help us move from “What’s the worst thing that can happen?” To “What is likely to happen given our past experience?”.  The service users I work with and I have used this to help teams see that for some, admission is likely to result in more lethal methods of coping.  Equally it has helped others recognise that after self harm is a time when the urge to harm has been reset, rather than the time to restrict.  There is little substitute for a coproduced formulation in helping everyone understand the risks and thus agree how to move forward.

There was a post on twitter recently that likened positive risk taking to clinicians neglectfully gambling with peoples lives.  I hope that people can see that this isn’t what I’m advocating.  Trying to eliminate risk can paradoxically put people in danger and we need to keep an awareness of this as we balance the need to support people with the need to keep them safe when they have lost the ability to do it for themselves.  If we can recognise when the focus of our work is protecting ourselves then we can step back and refocus on the person we are supposed to be helping.  If we can do this, the chances of our input being perceived as kindness is substantially increased.  

If you or your organisation would like to talk about how we can help with any of the above please get in touch via the website.  Keir provides therapy, training and consultancy via www.beamconsultancy.co.uk

Product Placement: Out of Sight and Out of Mind

This is jointly written by Keir Harding @keirwales and Hollie @Hoppypelican.  Please stay safe reading this.  It contains descriptions of self harm and restraint and allusions to abuse.

It’s taken a long time for us to put it together but we think its something that needs to be heard.

A story…

She places her hands against the cold window and peers through the grill into the twilit garden; the grill that traps her, obscures her view of the outside world and reinforces her cage.  The reds and pinks of dusk bleed across the manicured lawn; the progression of day to night being the only consistency amidst the chaos she lives within. Along the corridor someone is still screaming.  She knows the staff have tired of it because she hears the shouting and clattering of the care starting.

She remembers arriving; the initial feelings of safety, respite and containment that disintegrated over the days and months.  It was substituted with anxiety and frustration.  Still she wasn’t allowed to leave the cage that exacerbated her distress and eroded her last shreds of hope and resilience.   For a time she’d wanted to die but somewhere lurking in her subconscious was a desire for something to be different.  Even when things were at their darkest; when she’d swallowed down the tablets and knocked back the vodka, even after she’d written the note something inside her wanted to keep her alive.  She phoned for an ambulance even though she felt sick and ashamed. She knew she was wasting resources and she knew she was undeserving, but it took so much to pick up that phone. Utterly overwhelmed by sadness, self-loathing and desperation she sobbed as she told them. Drowsy and nauseous and to a total stranger, she gave away her darkest thoughts.  By the time she’d finished she just wanted to be looked after.  She just wanted someone to care.

When she got to the ward the ‘care’ started.  She told them she wouldn’t try again but they took her shoe laces and belt off her, then her bra. They rifled though her belongings like a Primark sale bin and anything deemed a ‘risk’ was confiscated; no explanation. Every night for years she’d listened to music to keep the worst of the thoughts at bay, but now that she was being cared for her headphones were snatched away, no recommendation of how else to keep out those intrusive barbs.  She was told she’d been silly.  She was told that everything she’d done was just to get attention.  She was told that the bed she had should have been used for someone who needed it. She was told she wasn’t ill, that it was just ‘bad behaviour’. She cried as she tried to shrink into the corner of the room.  The warm, wet tears dropped onto the blanket she’d pulled over her head.  In her mind she shrunk down like Alice in Wonderland and cowered within the Airtex cocoon.  After 15 minutes the blanket was ripped away and she was told she was attention seeking again.  It didn’t feel much like care, but they ‘cared’ for her every 15 minutes until the end of the night. The unlocking door and flash of torch, a reminder 4 times an hour that they were there, ‘caring’, watching and depriving her of sleep, the thing she longed for most.

The day came slowly with a murky light turning the dark into grey.  She’d watched every minute tick by, as between the 15 minute door clanging of the care and the shrieks of the others who were living in some other reality, sleep hadn’t come near her.  The energy of the other patients and the sudden noises frightened her.  This was not being looked after.  This was not what the care was supposed to feel like. She noticed that the other people on the ward seemed to have a very different version of care to what she was receiving. Having gone through life feeling like a pariah, this augmented and reaffirmed everything she believed about herself being different and not belonging in the world.

Conscious of her drooping jeans and laceless shoes she shuffled to the office.  She knocked gently and saw someone in a uniform catch her eye and look away again. This happened often. She knocked once more and waited for someone to come to her.  After she’d waited a while someone came along with a clipboard to give her the 15 minute care.  She explained that she wanted to go home and was told she couldn’t.  She told them that she felt different now, that she didn’t want to die, that she just needed to sleep; she wasn’t getting that here.  They told her she couldn’t go home.  She turned to walk towards the doors. She pulled and yanked at the stupid handle that you have to claw onto, it rattled but didn’t yield. They shouted that she needed to stay.  The doctor needed to see her; they made it clear if she didn’t behave she’d be made to – detained and totally stripped of liberty and dignity.

She felt helpless, like she had so often before.  She felt like a puppet; those in authority directing her moving parts and holding the control, just like before.  She was told that she’d manipulated her way into hospital and was now wasting people’s time.   With her face calm and her heart screaming, she walked to the toilet and wailed a piercing scream that vibrated though her head but didn’t make a sound.  Once again it didn’t matter what she wanted, others would make her do things, once again she didn’t matter, she was worthless and nothing.  She rooted through what was left of her things, biting the little plastic buds off the end of a hair-grip and dragging it down her arm; it brought nothing. She frantically searched for something else and found a lip balm tin.  She didn’t remember taking the lid off and jamming it into the doorframe to bend it and create a point.  She only remembered the noise stopping when she pushed the shard of metal into her leg.  She only felt that the world was right when she treated herself like the piece of shit everyone else had, when she punished herself like she was told she deserved.  She only felt like she had some control again when the pain blotted out everything and the blood let the agony flow away.

Within 15 minutes the toilet door opened, someone shouted “For fuck’s sake” and an alarm started going off.  In the tiny space of the toilet, three men she didn’t know ran towards her.  Just like before, they pinned her arms.  As she thrashed about they pulled her to the floor; she was no longer in hospital, she was transported back to that terrified child again.  She was pushed down, face to the floor, arms held, the backs of knees knelt on. She couldn’t move, couldn’t breathe, and as she fought to escape she felt her trousers being pulled down.  She screamed as loudly now as she had then.  She knew how this would end.  Broken, hurt, degraded. This pain was different.  This time a needle penetrated her buttock and as they held forced her into the floor she felt the wave of numbness wash over her.  Before everything turned to watercolour she heard someone saying that they knew this would happen.

Reality started to creep back as her body thawed but the world around her still felt hazy, like her head was full of candyfloss but no where near as sweet; this was due to the benzos she’d been forced to swallow with a thimble full of water. Made to open her mouth dentist wide and stick her tongue out and up to make sure they’d gone down. She still wanted to leave.  And they still wouldn’t let her.  She explained that she’d be okay.  They told her that people that cut themselves aren’t okay. She told them she’d only done that because they wouldn’t let her leave.  They told her she had to stay until she wasn’t going to kill herself and could keep herself safe.  But she’d thought about suicide every day for the past 4 years.  She’d cut herself carefully, with her special blade every day for 4 years.  How was she going to stop this now?  How was she going to stop it here?

She didn’t stop.  The urge to cut and get some sense of control back became overwhelming.  Without having her blade with her she did what she could to get the same relief but it became harder to do. They watched her.  They followed her.  After she smashed apart the Perspex covered display board and cut with the shards they stayed within arm’s length.  After she ripped her pants apart and tied them around her neck in the toilet she had to piss with the door open; underwear confiscated and hospital paper pants instated.  Every time they did more to ‘care’ for her she had to do something more frantic, more dangerous and with more of a chance of killing her.  Every time she did this, they did more and more to make sure she couldn’t do anything to hurt herself.  Every time she did this, three of them would hold her down, just like the men had when she was young; like them she could feel that they hated her. Every time she cut herself, they reacted as if she was cutting into them.  They couldn’t go on like this…

And they didn’t.  They told her that her personality was disordered and that she needed specialist treatment.  That her reaction to the ‘care’ was inappropriate.  That she needed to go to a specialist unit where she would be treated to get better.  She did not want to go, but to them she was voiceless, she was going, and would probably be gone for a year. Ripped away from everything and anyone she ever knew.

She’s been here 2 years now.   Things aren’t much different.  She can’t cut with anything so she tries to tie things around her neck a lot more.  She never did that when she was at home.  She’s on more medicine which is supposed to help but instead makes her drowsy.  She bothers people less when she’s sleepy.  She’s not got the energy to exercise, which she wants to do because she’s 3 stone heavier than when she arrived.  The specialist treatment she was supposed to get has turned into seeing her nurse 1:1 for an hour once a week, something she got more often at home. These sessions are not tailored to her needs and she is jammed into boxes she does not fit in; square peg, round hole.  She wants to go home but they tell her she isn’t safe.  She needs to stay in the specialist placement.  It doesn’t feel special.  She doesn’t feel special.  She feels likes she’s been forgotten and in a sense she has.  If any of the staff that worked with her previously think of her, they feel relief when they remember cutting the cord from her neck.  They think of their relief when they remember that she’s gone, not their responsibility, not their risk to contain, not their problem.  They never think of the time she looked after herself by phoning an ambulance.  They never remember that the things most likely to kill her began after they started ‘caring’ for her.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Between us we have worked in  and received mental health services for about 30 years now.  Sadly we have lost count of the number of people who have lived the exact same story we’ve described above.   People get stuck on an acute psychiatric ward and staff believe that the only answer is a specialist placement, even if no therapy or more intensive support has been tried in the community first.  Because “Specialist Unit” is not a protected title and doesn’t come with any accompanying standards, places become such a unit by changing the sign above their door.  People are then compelled to go to these non-specialist ‘specialist placements’ to receive little more than warehousing.  Unsurprisingly things don’t improve.  Unsurprisingly, the promised one year stretches into two or more.  Between a private provider who makes money from people being on their unit, and an NHS team who is afraid something dangerous will happen and they will end up in court, there is no incentive to bring people back home.  The cost to the NHS is extortionate.  The cost to people’s lives is immeasurable.

It’s  World Mental Health Day as we publish this.  On this day, while we think of how it is good to talk and that 1 in 4 of us (at least) will experience mental health problems, let’s try to remember some other people too.   Let us try to remember the people for whom we pay £200,000 a year to keep out of sight and out of mind.  Let us consider whether life at all costs is worth forcing people to live in hell.  Let us ponder whether our care can harm people.   Those who get diagnosed with personality disorder are notoriously excluded from NHS services, either by not being allowed through the door or not being allowed out of one far away.  Recently Norman Lamb spoke of how we value containing people over their human rights.  Certainly it seems better to have them locked away so it looks like we’re keeping them safe, regardless of the evidence and NICE guidance that suggest we should do the opposite.  In a 21st century healthcare system we cannot continue with this way of responding to people who have lived through trauma.  We will not have a 21st century healthcare system if we continue to pay £1,000,000 a year to enforce the safety of 5 people.

Keir and Hollie work  to help organisations avoid the situation described above, via beamconsultancy.co.uk 

Do leave us a comment or catch us on twitter and let us know your thoughts.

Throw Away the Key: An Alternative to Women in Prison?

Keir is a Lead Therapist in an NHS Specialist Service and provides training, consultation and therapy around complex mental health problems through beamconsultancy.co.uk

This is a very lazy blog, but on a day when there are calls for women’s prisons to close, I thought I’d dig out an old essay I did for my MSc. This was my least academically successful essay and earned me the feedback that I had portrayed women as victims. Should you ever be tempted to write a similar essay, you’ll find it is very difficult to do otherwise given the amount that the system victimises women.
We had to describe a service that would better respond to the needs of women and my attempt is below.  It will help if you know that the Corston Report was “a review of vulnerable women in the criminal justice system”.  Enjoy

Welsh – “Fenyw” (noun)
“Woman” (verb )English

A Service for Women in or at Risk of Entering the Criminal Justice System
My experience is in working in the community, most often with people who have not be arrested and convicted of crimes. There is a tendency to think of the forensic population as ‘other’ however many of the behaviours exhibited by my clients, if done outside the context of a mental health services, would certainly be of great concern to the general public and thus the agents of criminal justice. I will outline a service that would help the clients that I work with as well as those who have been arrested for crimes, those who have the capacity to hurt themselves and others, who struggle to maintain relationships with families and partners, and who experience strong feelings of rage, fear, helplessness and despair from those who work with them. In one sense, my service could be thought of as an organisational intervention that will target aspects that professionals find difficult to think about. In another way, my service would be for the clients as it will focus on and hold in mind the aspects of people that services are often keen to push away.

Before designing the service it’s worth looking at why change is required. The Corston report itself puts forward a number of reasons why the status quo is unfair. It can be argued that the system discriminates against women. (All of the following figures and statistics are taken from Corston 2008). Women are twice as likely as men to be jailed for a first offence. This is despite women committing less violent crime. In court women are more likely to be remanded to custody than men yet over half of the women remanded do not receive custodial sentences. If over half of the decisions to incarcerate are deemed unnecessary when the accused is tried, it seems that something untoward is occurring when women first enter the criminal justice system.
Women commit different crimes to men being involved in more acquisitive crime and substantially less involved in serious violence. Not only are their crimes different, the reasons behind their offending are different, with relationships, accommodation issues and substance misuse being greater factors than for men.

Ethically, the punishment aspect of the judicial system seems harsh for a population already suffering. They are frequently victims of crime, ill or already punishing themselves. 80% of women in prison have diagnosable mental health problems with twice as many women as men seeking help in the year prior to their sentence. Despite making up only 5.5% of the prison population, women account for 51% of the incidents of self harm. In prison, women are more likely than men to kill themselves. Two thirds of women coming into prison require detoxing from drug addiction. It might be unsurprising that women in prison hurt themselves given their backgrounds. Half of them have been victims of violence while one in three (compared to one in ten men) have experienced sexual abuse.
It seems sadistic to be harsh to this population yet the experience of prison is felt more harshly by women than by men. There are the invasive searches which cannot be well received by the third that have been sexually abused. There is the fact that a third of the women are lone parents who suffer knowing their children are not with a parent. 12% of women prisoner’s children will be looked after by strangers in the care system. When in prison, 30% of women lose their accommodation often including their possessions. To compound the punishment, women are separated from their families. Living in Wales, if my wife was to be unnecessarily remanded she would serve her time in a different country.
Discriminating and sadistic…it makes sense that Corston would want change. Others might take issue with Corston’s report and seek to emphasise the similarities between men and women. Adshead (2004), looking at forensic mental health patients, highlights the similarities in the in the backgrounds of males and females in secure settings with high levels of childhood abuse and neglect coupled with high levels of lifetime and childhood victimisation in both sexes. While this is a risk factor for violence in men Adshead points out that the gender stereotyping of females means that the masculine trait of violence is likely to be interpreted as madness in women but understandable in men. Women then go to hospital while men go to prison for the same actions. What we could take from Adshead is that a focus on the outcomes of abuse and neglect might be less important than an understanding of how the past affects us. Rather than treatments for men and for women, an intervention for victims/perpetrators of violence might serve better.

To adequately design a service that meets the needs of women, we need to understand the population we serve. I’ve already outlined the deprivation in backgrounds of many female offenders. When we add that “71% of female offenders have no qualifications whatsoever” (Civitas 2010) we can picture a background of poverty, stress and deprivation. “60% of women in prison are single. 34% of women in prison are lone parents. Around two-thirds of women were mothers living with their children before they came into prison” (Corston 2008). Nearly two thirds of boys who have a parent in prison will go on to commit some kind of crime themselves (Prison Reform Trust 2012).
We can picture some of the difficulties at home (if the children can stay at home). There is not only the statistical impact on offending but from a psychological perspective there are many examples of people who have a history of early neglect and/or abuse who go on to unconsciously recreate their pasts with the next generation (Motz 2008, De Zulueta 2008)
Some of the needs of this population are obvious: drug abuse, being unemployable due to literacy and numeracy deficits, lack of housing, difficulty parenting, self harm and mental health problems. Fenyw will address these needs and more. In describing Fenyw I am not going to confine my thoughts to a specific service and building, instead I’ll attempt to describe elements on a pathway that I feel are essential while leaving the practicalities of how this might be achieved to better minds than mine.

Keeping Women Out of Institutions

There are many arguments above as to why prison is not a good option for women. In my work I see people routinely hurting themselves in the community and uncontrollably maiming themselves in institutions. Studies show how restrictive environments can increase the frequency and severity of self harm (Harrison, 1998) while Pearson suggests that “suicide attempts and assaults are increased when women are detained in secure settings where the means of self harming and the access to substances that might dampen feelings” are reduced (Pearson 2010). Part of Fenyw would be to provide an advisory service to courts to divert women from custody wherever possible. Fenyw would hold in mind the idea that “Custodial sentences for women must be reserved for serious and violent offenders who pose a threat to the public.” (Corston, 2008).
To be able to thoughtfully divert women from prison Fenyw would need to hold a balanced view untainted by discrimination and mindful of what does and doesn’t work. Fenyw would remember “it is very unusual for women to act violently at all” (Adshead 2004) and that female violence is often directed at themselves (Motz 2008). We would embrace Welldon’s (1998) notions of the child being an extension of the mother’s body when recognising that 40-45% of female homicide offenders kill their children (Yakeley, 2010). We would also hold in mind that a third of female homicide offender’s victims are their partners while 80% are close family members (Yakeley, 2010). Fenyw would hold the idea that the vast majority of female offenders pose little to no danger to the public at large, therefore they do not need to be imprisoned. I think of my experience of Women’s wards and while I haven’t worked on one I have always been aware of their reputation as being the most violent and chaotic wards in the institution. Staff seemed to be regularly assaulted, residents were always fighting. Given the statistics on women assaulting non family members it seems that there must be something toxic on female units that allows women’s usual patterns of violence to be subverted to such an extent. Fenyw would avoid these environments as much as possible.
Diversion from prison would be done on the basis of a psychological formulation consistent with the Personality disorder pathway. Some would have to go to prison. Some would self harm to such an extent that they would need protection from themselves. Fenyw would stay involved to ensure periods of restriction were as short as possible. Much as I resent the notion of hierarchy in the NHS and other institutions (not least coming from the lowly status of OT) Fenyw would need consultant psychiatrists to be part of the team to take on an RMO role from staff who see the only solution to risk to be greater restrictions and heavier nurses.

Within the NHS and criminal justice system, self harm is often a fast route to responsibility being taken from you and restrictions being placed. Fenyw would make the understanding of self harm a priority for the service. This is an important distinction as while the service will help people who wish to stop self harming, the focus will be on making sense of the purpose of the act. You wouldn’t need to work in my organisation for long meet someone who regularly cuts themselves at home, but  in a ward environment gouges their arms wit broken CDs or torn Coke cans after their blades have been taken away to “keep them safe”. Based on a psychological formulation of their behaviour, Fenyw would understand self harm as a communication (Motz 2009), a way of solving a problem (Linehan 1993), a re-enactment of past abuse or as something else that made sense to the client. Fenyw would then thoughtfully only remove responsibility from someone in the most extreme circumstances and then in the least restrictive way possible for as short a period as possible.
A Different Community Service

I envision women being diverted from court to the women’s centres Corston described. I would take her recommendations further and rather than the centres be places to refer and signpost, I would have them co-run with the NHS to provide ongoing intervention and support. Residential accommodation would be on site as well as units to cater for families and units to detox those who required it. The women might attend local centres to be able to work on their difficulties while living in their usual environment. Sometimes it might be more beneficial for the women to have a new start away from old toxic relationships where the process of starting new relationships can be examined and thought about. People might be compelled to attend these centres when they are sentenced but for me this is where the compulsion should end. My probation colleagues speak of the lack of reward inherent in providing interventions people attend under duress.

My background is in working in Day Therapeutic Communities where the only expectation of people is that they come – everything else can be talked about. Within the women’s centres I would work to the principles of the therapeutic community – attachment, containment, communication involvement and agency. (Haigh, 1999) In essence the centres would be a place where women felt they belonged and were accepted, a place where unspeakable thoughts can be put into words and acted on, a place that the women own and sustain. It’s not easy to engender these concepts but for those who cannot make use of the formal therapy on offer, this very different and more subtle intervention has more of a chance of success. The enabling environment of the TC can build the sense of belonging and personal efficacy the clients are unlikely to have developed in their backgrounds of deprivation (Pearce& Pickard 2012). Key to maintaining the ethos of the centres will be the roles of Experts by Experience in the centres. Thus much of the modelling, sharing, advice and direction will be imparted by people without a theoretic knowledge of offending and mental health, but with a lived experience of surviving trauma, illness and the criminal justice system. Those with lived experience have been shown to provide better outcomes than traditional services when “engaging people into care, reducing the use of emergency rooms and hospitals, and reducing substance use among persons with co-occurring substance use disorders. …peer staff have also been found to increase participants’ sense of hope, control, and ability to effect changes in their lives; increase their self-care, sense of community belonging, and satisfaction with various life domains; and decrease participants’ level of depression and psychosis.” (Simpson 2002).

The client group Fenyw targets comes from a background of abuse and neglect, where the template for healthy relationships has not been taught, and where communication has been more through actions than words. One of the main goals of Fenyw is to help our clients to use help and much of the work will be exploring the relationships that develop in the centre. Motz (2014) highlights the impact of experiencing and witnessing intimate partner violence and the frequency with which these toxic relationships are replayed later life. Fenyw will attempt to help its clients understand their relationship patterns in a community setting where mistakes can be made and thought about.

While Fenyw’s TC elements would qualify it as an enabling environment (Haigh et al 2012) there would be a number of other therapies on offer. What people attended would be based on their preference and formulation with a focus on managing acute problems first. I would struggle to make use of anything if I was withdrawing, psychotic, penniless, separated from my children and/or homeless. Staff including social workers and experts by experience would prioritise these needs. Once clients are able to think about more than survival, psychologically focused individual and group work would be on offer including DBT, metallization and psychoanalysis. In addition there would be roles in the centres which clients could take on the gain work experience and qualifications, there would be links to voluntary work and education and a program for increasing literacy and numeracy. Ideally our initial clients would be our future experts by experience.
What I have outlined in the two points above is an organisational intervention to keep women from going into environments of high security and a clinical intervention to subtly provide a healthy attachment for the women to go on to make use of more structured therapies. My rational for doing this is that people who readily identify their difficulties and believe change is possible tend to do well in therapy. Alas from the profile outlined earlier, these people are not reflected in the female prison population.

The difficulties for staff working in Fenyw will be significant. “Without robust frameworks to make sense of the intense emotional content of interpersonal contact there is a high risk of…(staff) being drawn into toxic relationships with the women patients, other professional groups and each other (Aiyegbusi 2004). The relationship difficulties of the past will be played out in the centres. Not only do we ask the staff to help those who have little experience of carers being helpful (Hinshelwood 2002), we ask them to thoughtfully hold back from the urge to protect those who are communicating their pain and to let the clients learn from their peers rather solving problems ourselves. This is all while the staff are holding ideas about those who hurt others coming to an easy option rather than being punished. One solution is to employ the mythical ‘right staff’ but in their absence, the service user consultants will be key to ensuring that splits are reduced – its hard to think of ‘us and them’ when the staff have been in prison and the offenders are in the staff room. Also “the experience of co working with service users reconnects staff with them emotionally” (Farr, 2011) reducing the risk of dehumanising our clientele. This deconstruction of the powerful/powerless dynamic that has proved so unhelpful for this client group will be difficult for staff, used to being in positions of authority, as they adjust to a different role. Tuck & Aiyegbusi write of the damage staff can sustain when receiving the raw communication (projection) of their clients trauma. Staff “need supportive, containing structures where they can think about their relationships, test reality and reflect on their experiences thoughtfully. (Tuck, G & Aiyegbusi A 2008).  Fenyw would provide regular individual and group supervision to help staff process the experience of the work. While our staff would recognise our clients as victims, they must not “behave as if they had no idea why their clients had been imprisoned in the first place” (Barrett 2011) so supervision would help us to keep a balanced view of those we work with. Fenyw’s leadership must promote an environment where mistakes are opportunities to learn to reduce the chances of a blame culture developing. We would also emphasise shared decision making (particularly with our clients) so that no one person is held accountable.

The goals for Fenyw would be typical of a criminal justice/NHS service. We aim to reduce offending. In addition reduced self harm, mental health problems, substance misuse and more clients having stable accommodation would be key. These might be achievable via increased problem solving skills, parenting skills, literacy, numeracy, sense of belonging, self efficacy and people in work education or training. Also we’d like less children going into care and victimisation (avoiding typical relationship patterns). Because Fenyw will keep clients in the least restrictive environment, there is potentially a risk of increased completed suicide or accidental death when engaging in potentially lethal self harm. It would be important to measure the quality of life of clients currently in prison/secure settings to compare it with those in the women’s centres. Many would be fearful of a higher number of deaths, but there would be less people living in hell. This is likely to be a highly contentious issue for the public and the media but for Fenyw to be successful it cannot replicate the environments that seek to eliminate risk which currently fail women so badly.

Our women’s centres cannot be islands where men don’t exist or are seen only as abusers. There will be a mix of staff so that the experience of a relationships  can be scrutinised and thought about. After the women have gained some understanding of their patterns of relationships (either from individual therapy or the TC) they will be encouraged to explore relationships  in the community, ideally in environments outside of mental health or criminal justice. Women would move from residing at the centres, to attending regularly to attending as required as indicated by their formulation.

 

And that is my ‘Moon Under Water’ of the female criminal justice world. What you missed out on was another 1000 words about what it was like to study women in a largely female educational environment.  Interestingly I started wearing figure hugging tops and grew a beard.  No doubt if the course was a few weeks longer I’d have dragged the carcass of an animal I’d hunted and killed in with me.

The service I described is quite idealistic but certainly no worse than the prison environment where something so toxic happens that women kill themselves at a higher rate than men. As ever, let me know what you think. Keir @keirwales
Keir is a Lead Therapist in an NHS Specialist Service and provides training, consultation and therapy around complex mental health problems through beamconsultancy.co.uk

References
Adshead,G. (2004) More alike than different. In WorkingTherapeutically
withWomen in Secure Mental Health Settings (eds N. Jeffcote & T.Watson).
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Barrett, J (2011). Sustainable organisations in health and social care. In: A. &.
R. D. Rubitel, ed. Containmnet in the Community: Supportive Frameworks fot
Thinking About Antisocial Behaviour and Mental Health. London: Karnac, pp.
45-67.

CIVITAS Institute of the Study of Civil Society (2010) Factsheet- Prisons in
England and Wales. http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/factsheet-Prisons.pdf
accessed 13/04/2015
Adshead, G (2004) ‘More Alike than Different’, in (ed) Aiyegbusi, A
Therapeutic Relationships with Offenders: An Introduction to the
Psychodynamics of Mental Health Nursing (Forensic Focus)
Aiyegbusi, A (2004) ‘Thinking Under Fire’ in eds Jeffcote, N & Watson, T
Working Therapeutically with Women in Secure Mental Health Settings
London: Jessica
Corston, J (2007). A report by Baroness Jean Corston of a review of
women with particular vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice system.
London: Home Office.
De Zulueta, F (2008) From Pain to Violence: The Traumatic Roots of
Destructiveness London: Wiley
Linehan, M. M. (1993) Cognitive Behavioral Treatment of Borderline
Personality Disorder. New York: Guilford.

Low, G., Jones, D., Duggan, C., et al (2001) The treatment of deliberate self-
harm in borderline personality disorder using dialectical behaviour therapy. A
pilot study in a high security hospital. Behavioural and Cognitive
Psychotherapy, 29, 85–92
Motz, A (2014) Toxic Couples: The Psychology of Domestic Violence Hove:
Routledge (Chapter 2: ‘Action Replay: The Intergenerational Transmission of
Abuse’
Motz, A (2009) ‘Self-harm as a Sign of Hope’ in Motz, A (ed) Managing Self-
Harm: Psychological Perspectives (Chapter 1)
Motz A 2008. The Psychology of Female Violence: Crimes Against the Body
Taylor & Francis, 2008
Farr, M., 2011. Collaboration in public services: can service users and staff
particpate together?. In: M. Barnes & P. Cotterell, eds. Critical perspectives
on user involvement. London: Policy Press.
Haigh, R. (1999) The Quintessence of a Therapeutic Environment. Five
Universal Qualities, Therapeutic Communities. Past, Present and Future p.
246-257, (ed.) P Campling and R. Haigh, London and Philadelphia: Jessica
Kingsley.
Haigh , R, Harrison , M, Johnson , R Paget , S Williams ,S (2012)
"Psychologically informed environments and the “Enabling Environments”
initiative", Housing, Care and Support, Vol. 15 Iss: 1, pp.34 – 42
Harrison A. (1998). A harmful procedure. Nursing Times, 94, 36–38
Pearson J Therapeutic practice with women in prisons and othersecure
settings (2012) In Harvey J and Smedley K (eds) Psychosocial Therapy in
Prisons and Other Secure Settings. Willan Publishing, Abingdon

Hinshelwood RD (2002) Abusive help– helping abuse: the psychodynamic
impact of severe personality disorder on caring institutions. Crim Behav Ment
Health. 2002;12(2 Suppl):S20-30
Pearce, S. & Pickard, H., 2012. How Therapeutic Communities Work: Specific
Factors Related to Positive Outcome. [Online]
Available at:
http://isp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/07/18/0020764012450992
[Accessed 2nd July 2014].
Prison Reform Trust (2012) Reforming Women’s Justice: Reducing the
imprisonment of women
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Womenleaflet.pdf
Accessed 13/04/2015
Serano, Julia (2007). Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and
the Scapegoating of Femininity. Berkeley: Seal Press.
Simpson, E., 2002. Involving service users in the delivery and evaluation of
mental health services: systematic review. BMJ, 325(1265).
Tuck, G & Aiyegbusi, A (2008) ‘Caring Amide Victims and Perpetrators:
Trauma and forensic mental health nursing’ in eds. Gordon, J & Kirtchuk, G
Psychic Assaults and Frightened Clinicians: Countertransference Respo
Welldon, E.V. (1988) Mother Madonna Whore: The Idealisation and
Denigration of Motherhood London: Free Association Books
Yakeley, J (2010) ‘Violent Women’ in Working with Violence: A Contemporary
Psychoanalytic Approach (Basic Texts in Counselling and Psychotherapy)
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
De Zulueta, F (2008) From Pain to Violence: The Traumatic Roots of
Destructiveness London: Wiley

 

Forgetting inconvenient truths: A way to keep thinking.

January 2018 was an interesting month in the world of what textbooks refer to as Personality Disorder. There was the launch of the Personality Disorder Consensus Statement, an article on Personality Disorder on the BBC and the launch of the Power Threat Meaning Framework. While I haven’t read the full version of the PTFM I have read a lot about it, and there has been a lot to read. The responses were many and mixed. Some of the responses have been vitriolic, others merely critical, and others more celebratory as a high profile way of thinking about mental health and mental health problems leaps into being.

 
Some of the criticisms of the PTMF are articulately laid out here. What I want to do in this blog is lay out a basic version of what the PTMF promotes, why it’s essential that people can take this on board and what might get in the way of making some use of it.

3d doctor
Within traditional psychiatry signs and symptoms that occur together are named as a diagnosis. The PTMF encourages us to shy away from diagnosis and illness and instead explore a person’s difficulties and distress in terms of:
 What happened to you?
 How did it affect you?
 What sense did you make of it?
 What did you have to do to survive?

 
From the questions above we can then discover a narrative around why someone does what they do. We can see how their behaviour makes perfect sense given their previous experiences. In an ideal world we can then think about what might help and at a minimum consider how to avoid replaying some of the person’s most negative experiences.

 
For difficulties such as insomnia the framework might not be that helpful. For other areas I suspect clinicians and service users should use it if they both agree it’s useful. For the people who get labelled with Borderline Personality Disorder this kind of thinking is vital.

 
Why is it vital? There was a time that I didn’t think that it was. I was happy to join in with a roll of the eyes and a “typical PD” comment. I could understand that someone was self-harming because they had a personality disorder. Times when I felt attacked or criticised it was easy to label everything as the product of a disordered personality – this left me as a flawless clinician with merely a faulty patient to contend with.
As the years ticked by my experiences in work got me thinking of people with a diagnosis much more as simply people. My work became about helping staff who thought in the way that I used to, to unpick their ideas and see someone in a more empathic way. What I tended to find was that a list of diagnostic criteria had absolutely no impact in how staff thought about and responded to the people in their care. When we could move away from the descriptive (and fairly judgemental) criteria and think about the experiences that people had lived through that might inform how they behaved, then it felt like some empathy could arise.

 

Two examples:
1 Looking through someone’s notes I read “Mandy went to her room and was self harming due to her diagnosis”. It frustrated me that someone’s thinking could begin and end with that sentence. There was no sense of what was going on in their head. No indication of or curiosity about what they might be feeling. No indication of how people around them responded (apart from the implication that it was dismissed and pathologised). How can we help people if our sole understanding of their behaviour is that they do it because of a particular label?

 
2 I was in a group and someone recounted something that they’d done “because of my BPD”. We spent a decent amount of time exploring how their feelings and responses were entirely appropriate, especially given their early traumatic experiences. The description of overwhelming emotion and the desperate urge to feel something different made a lot more sense and contained more potential for change than “because I’ve got BPD”.

 
It would be easy to say that the above examples are simply people using diagnosis badly. While this is true, there is something that happens in this area of work that means that traumatic histories are forgotten and staff see risky or troubling behaviour purely through the lens of their own experience.

 
“I feel manipulated” = They were manipulating me
“I don’t know why they did that” = They were doing it for attention
She cut herself after ward round = She’s trying to sabotage her discharge

 
To an extent this is understandable (understanding does not mean approval). I was very poorly trained to work with people who had lived through trauma and my understanding is that undergraduate training hasn’t changed significantly. With no knowledge base, the students of today tend to learn from those who also had little training so learned on the job. Combine this with people who cope in ways that can be dangerous (the results of which staff might be blamed for) and you have an environment full of confused, anxious clinicians. This seems to lead to a situation where toxic ideas can flourish with little opportunity for people to learn anything different. A new cycle of treating people as if they were manipulators begins, with people reacting to that hostility and then having their reactions explained by their diagnosis.

 
This doesn’t happen everywhere but it does happen every day. Any tool we can use to stop the thinking shortcuts of “They’re just…” and focus on an empathic understanding of why someone does what they do seems essential for maintaining compassionate care. We can’t validate someone with personality disorder, but we can validate someone whose thoughts feelings and actions make perfect sense given their experience. The PTMF may not be product that means we never use diagnosis again, but let’s not boycott the restaurant because there are a few dishes we don’t like.

 

Keir provides training, consultancy and therapy via www.beamconsultancy.co.uk

The State of ‘Personality Disorder’ Services in Wales

 March is upon us and this is my first blog of this year.  The main reason for that is that I’ve been desperately trying to get my dissertation finished and any writing that has not contributed to that 18,000 word total has felt like a betrayal.  Anyway, it’s handed in now and it’s time to cast my eyes upon the land of my fathers as the British and Irish Group for the Study of Personality Disorder Annual Conference is coming to Cardiff on March 20th.  With this in mind, it’s worth looking at how Wales responds to the needs of those diagnosed with personality disorder and how we compare to our neighbours on the other side of Offa’s Dyke.

In some ways, Wales has been quite pioneering in this field.  While the NICE guidelines for borderline personality disorder were published in 2009, Wales laid out its own blueprint for services in 2005 calling for the provision of specialist services that were integrated into current provision.  This was echoed in the NICE guidelines 4 years later.  With Welsh Government guidelines and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence requiring trusts to provide specialist services you would assume that Wales would have ploughed ahead.  You would be mistaken…

In 2017 Oliver Dale and his colleagues undertook a review of the provision of personality disorder services in England.  They found that 84% of trusts provided a specialist service.  In Cardiff in 2016, at a conference that gathered people from all the trusts in Wales, we very quickly replicated Dale’s study.  We found that less than half of Welsh trusts (3/7) had specialist services.  This was odd because 2 had services that were recognised as being very effective while areas that didn’t have specialist services talked about “the privatisation of PD” – how those diagnosed with a personality disorder were ‘not their business’ and were sent to expensive independent hospitals miles away.

Given the potential for specialist services to reduce the amount of people sent (and they go under the mental health act so they are literally sent) out of area I began to wonder why the Welsh Government wasn’t pushing trusts to follow NICE guidelines, or even its own guidelines.  I wrote to the Health Secretary asking if he could encourage trusts to follow his own and NICE guidelines or explain what they were doing that was better.  The disappointing response was:

“I hope you will understand that neither the Cabinet Secretary nor Welsh Government officials can intervene in health boards’ day-to-day operations”

This seems to me to be a preposterous answer.  Not least because one of the Welsh Health trusts is under ‘special measures’.  This is defined as “Current arrangements require significant change. Welsh Ministers may take intervention as set out in the NHS (Wales) Act 2006.” So in contrast to the answer I received, Ministers can not only ask why NICE guidelines are not being followed, they can take intervention to remedy it.  In this case they merely choose not to.

If over half of Welsh trusts were refusing to provide treatment for people with cancer I suspect someone at the assembly would pick up the phone.  If half of Welsh trusts declined to offer services to war veterans I’m convinced someone at the assembly would write a letter.  Over half of Welsh trusts are ignoring Welsh Government guidelines and NICE guidelines for people diagnosed with personality disorder and the government doesn’t even see it as within its remit to ask why.

We can have lots of ideas about why this might be.  We could say it’s because specialist services cost money, but the evidence is that they save money by reducing the need for expensive Out of Area placements.  We might conclude that personality disorder remains a diagnosis of exclusion in Wales and that for some reason this is acceptable.  Those in mental health tend not to shout very loud for their rights to be upheld.  Those diagnosed with personality disorder are probably the most stigmatised and excluded within mental health.  They are easy to ignore, easy to forget about and potentially paying £200,000 a year for them to be sent out of area is for some reason a better option than having to work with them at home. We can do better than this.

I wasn’t particularly satisfied with the answer I received, so I emailed again.  Part of my letter said:

“I take your point that neither the cabinet secretary nor government officials can intervene in the day to day running of health boards, but I wonder if the Welsh government could avoid being complicit in the exclusion of people diagnosed with personality disorder by strongly encouraging trusts to follow its own guidance.  My understanding is that NICE clinical guidelines continue to apply in Wales so I’m curious why it’s acceptable for less than half of Welsh trusts to follow them.  Given that trusts have been sued for not following NICE guidelines would it be prudent for the Welsh Government to call on trusts to justify why they are not following the guidelines rather than have to pay the legal bills when somebody opts to take matters to court?

I welcome the extra money that the Welsh Government has put into primary care however the clientele I was speaking of tend to manage their distress with potentially lethal self harm.  This is generally not seen as a primary care role and an absence of specialist services means that they get sent to largely unsuccessful out of area placements at a cost of around £200,000 a year.  This is £1,000,000 to treat 5 people where a specialist team at a fraction of the cost could provide better treatment without the necessity to send Welsh people to England”

My response to this one was equally uninspiring.  I was told that despite seeing no role for itself in highlighting that less than half of its trusts follow NICE guidelines for a particularly stigmatised group, the government had signed a pledge to reduce stigma.  I feel like actions might have spoken much louder than words here.

I was also told “The Welsh government’s main role is to set the strategic direction for health services and hold the NHS to account”.  For me ‘Strategic Direction’ might include writing guidance.  ‘Hold the NHS to account’ might include ensuring that guidance is followed.  I’m baffled why this is the case for some areas of health but not the realm of personality disorder.

The reply finished with “Health boards must regularly review their services to ensure they meet the needs of their resident population you may, therefore, wish to consider contacting the individual health boards directly on this matter” – my interpretation of this was “We have produced guidance, NICE has produced guidance, half of our trusts are ignoring it and if you want to know why, you can ask them yourself”.  Again, this seems an incredibly vague interpretation of setting strategic direction and holding the NHS to account.

I did an experiment and opted to contact one of the health boards to find out why they didn’t follow NICE guidelines.  They replied that Dialectical Behaviour Therapy was available in some areas and that intervention was offered through generic services.  “That’s not what I asked” I replied, “Where are the specialist services that NICE recommend?”  They replied something along the lines of “We know we’re not following the NICE guidelines and we’re working on it as a priority”.  Given that it’s 13 years on from the Welsh government guidance and 9 years from the NICE guidance you have to wonder how far down the list of priorities it must have been.  There is also the worrying response that “we need additional funding to create specialist services” when the reality is that a service could be paid for immediately by not sending one or two people out of area.  If the health boards are happy to spend £1,000,000 providing treatment to 5 people for a year, why not provide therapy to hundreds of people in the community for the same money?

Frustrated and wanting to know the extent of the problem the trust was ignoring I tried one more time.  A freedom of information request asked:

  1. How much does the Health Board spend on residential treatment for people diagnosed with a personality disorder?

  2. How many acute beds are utilised by such patients who are often stuck on acute wards?

This resulted in the response:

“Unfortunately, the Health Board is unable to respond to your request for information as we do not record data on personality disorders to this level of detail.”

“This level of detail” is an interesting phase. Another interpretation of this is “People we pay over and above £200,000 per year to receive treatment in private hospitals, we don’t even record what we are paying for”.

No Longer A Diagnosis of Exclusion was a document published 15 years ago highlighting the discrimination people diagnosed with personality disorder experienced within mental health services.  15 years on, despite an early call for better service provision, the Welsh dragon must hang its head at the ongoing systemic discrimination that goes on.  This is a client group of whom 10% will die by suicide.  The National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by people with a Mental Illness found that none of the 10% who died over the period of their study were receiving care that was consistent with NICE guidelines.  Perhaps a high proportion were living in Wales where for some reason the NICE guidelines don’t apply or, for this client group, there is no will for trusts to implement them.

It was about 2 years ago that I asked the Welsh government to encourage trusts to follow the guidance it had written around personality disorder, let alone the NICE guidelines that apply across England and Wales.  That 84% of English trusts have a specialist service compared to our 43% is shameful indeed. It would be less shameful if we saw it as a travesty to be addressed rather than an issue to contact individual trusts about if you are interested.  I’ve asked Mind Cymru, Time to Change Wales, Hafal, Gofal and other groups with an influential voice to try to make some noise about the current exclusion of this client group in Wales.  Perhaps with the British and Irish Group for the Study of Personality Disorder Conference coming to Cardiff in March, the Welsh Government might reassess it’s position on encouraging trusts to follow its own guidance.  Perhaps it might start counting the amount of money spent on sending people to England for treatment they don’t want.  Perhaps 15 years on it might reread No Longer A Diagnosis of Exclusion and consider that the difficulties experienced by those diagnosed with personality disorder have a legitimate place in our health service after all. I hope they do.

For a petition to be considered by the Welsh Assembly it needs to get 50 signatures.  A petition that calls on the Welsh Government to implement the NICE guidelines for borderline personality disorder can be found HERE.  Please sign.

Keir Harding provides Training, Consultancy and Therapy around complex mental health problems via www.beamconsultancy.co.uk

A Disorder for Everyone?

Dec 8th 2017

It is too early in the morning, there is a light dusting of snow on the ground, and I’m heading off to Manchester to spend a day dropping the disorder.  A Disorder for Everyone  (#adisorder4everyone) advertises itself as a one day event for a range of staff and service users to discuss critical questions around the biomedical model in health.  My perception of it is that it’s overtly critical of our current system of diagnosis (especially around the term personality disorder) and heavily promotes the idea of formulation and understanding difficulties rather than labelling them.  Less a neutral place to debate but a place with an agenda and a message to impart. This is no bad thing as I’d agree with something that I often hear emanating from the AD4E days, that “Diagnosis obscures peoples stories”, that once something is labelled, it’s an excuse to stop thinking and respond to the label rather than the person.

The event comes at a poignant time.  Earlier in the week I’d lost someone I was relatively close to (as close as you can be to someone you have never met) on twitter to suicide and I was at an event  where her passing was to be acknowledged.  She was almost described as someone who ‘had’ personality disorder and I was glad to be able to point out how much she (and eminent psychiatrists) rejected that label for her presentation, how she felt that it had led to a ‘care’ plan she felt to be brutal and dehumanising and how she saw the label as something that had led to the staff around her acting in a way that was toxic to her.  So in a week where the damage labels can do is on my mind more than usual I was off to find out more.

I need to confess to being a touch apprehensive about going.  When talking about what textbooks describe as ‘personality disorder’ on social media I tend to get a bit of a hard time.  I wonder if it’s because the debate tends to become polarised and I actively try to keep something of a middle ground.  In a polarised debate this means I don’t end up on anyone’s ‘side’ tending to result in me being perceived to be ‘against’ people.  I rarely am and if anything, my views on diagnosis tend to slide more towards the DTD side.  I shall elaborate….

Whenever I’m training people about personality disorder, someone will pretty much always say “I want to know about the signs and symptoms and the different types”.  In many ways, this knowledge is next to useless, but it does help staff feel more competent and competent.  Most days this statement gets a response along the lines of….

There are 10 types of personality disorder.  I’ve worked in a variety of mental health settings for the past 18 years and I have met less that 10 people with a personality disorder diagnosis that isn’t borderline or antisocial.  So – there’s these 10 types, only 2 of them ever get diagnosed.  Something with this system is seriously wrong.

In my experience if you are a woman who self harms, you are getting a BPD diagnosis regardless of whatever else is going on.  Something with this system is seriously wrong.

Research suggests that if you can be diagnosed with one personality disorder, it’s highly likely you’ll meet the criteria for another 2.  That’s 3 personality disorders in all.  So in a system that aims to put people into a neat tidy box so that we know a care pathway, it’s messy because they’re actually in 3 boxes (and probably with some traits in a few others).  Something with this system is seriously wrong.

Let’s take borderline personality disorder in the DSM 5 as an example.  To be given the diagnosis you need to match 5 of the 9 criteria.  Let’s say that my friend Ian and I are on the ward.  He can meet criteria 1-5 and I’ll meet criteria 5-9.  That’s us with the same diagnosis, the same treatment plan, and sharing only one characteristic.  Something with this system is seriously wrong.

Those are the problems within the system, let alone the insult inherent in labelling someone as having a disordered personality.  I can intellectually accept that we all have personality traits, that some of those can cause us difficulties (mine do!) and that if they cause us serious difficulties that could be described as a disorder. The difficulty in this field is that the majority of the people getting this label are those who have lived through experiences of neglect, abandonment and outright abuse.  To then label them as disordered rather than seeing them as having an understandable response to their experiences then seems to be somewhat callous.

Now often, people can’t accept that the ideas above go anywhere near my head at all.  One reason for this is that I work in a personality disorder service.  I’m told that I have an investment in this label and that I have forged a career on the backs of abused women.  I can see a basis for this argument but I’m not sure what the correct response is.  I suspect it’s to jack in my job.  The difficulty I see with that is that systems often struggle with people who get a personality disorder label.  I want to make that better.  I’ve met too many people who come onto wards feeling suicidal and never get let off again.  Ways of coping that would go unnoticed in the community become reasons to detain in hospital and all of a sudden people have been on an acute ward for 6 months, they’re on a range of toxic chemicals, they’re 3 stone heavier and they’re about  to be shipped off to some institution miles from home.  Will this happen less if I stop work?  I suspect not.  Will there be a voice that challenges this trajectory?  Again I suspect not.  I was reading Gary Kasparov’s book last week and he was talking about what to do to combat malaria.  Do you try and help some people now or a lot of people in the future?  Do you make more mosquito nets or do you work on a cure?  I’m making mosquito nets and I want all those working on the cure to succeed.  It doesn’t mean that either of us is the enemy.

So in essence, this is what I a took into the event.  I also took some worries.  If the diagnostic system vanishes, how do newly qualified staff cope?  It took me years to feel confident enough to just look at the difficulties people were experiencing.  Can someone do that fresh from college?  How does that culture change come about?  Painfully I suspect.

Also, what do we do with our accumulated knowledge so far?  Is it useless because it’s built on such a shaky foundation?  With a diagnostic system shattered, will we know ‘what works for what’ anymore?

 

 

So the event is over.  And I survived.  Actually, the apprehension I’d had about attending was totally groundless and while a couple of people recognised me from social media, they couldn’t have been friendlier or more welcoming.  While there was a touch more poetry present than I would normally have the stomach for, it was powerful in its delivery and did what I think all good poetry does, says more with less words.

I’d opted to go to this event rather than other DTD ones as I was keen to hear Lucy Johnston speak and I’d somehow managed to overlook that she actually speaks at all of them.  I was a little bit disappointed, not it the quality of what she said, but because I’d expected there might be something to rail against.  Something that sounded a bit too left field or a bit ‘crazy’.  Instead Lucy gave a critique of diagnosis where there wasn’t anything substantial to push against.  If I’d wanted to be particularly devilish I might have pointed out that the diagnostic criteria she (rightfully) pointed out as being moral judgements did come with the caveat that they needed to cause problems for people for the diagnosis to apply.  Having said that, I’ve seen people detained in hospital for self harm that was only a problem for other people so I might support Lucy’s position about the spirit of how diagnosis is used, if not the letter of it.

In the afternoon Lucy spoke about the value of team formulation.  Again (almost disappointingly) there was little to disagree with.  She described a mechanism to keep teams thinking so that they weren’t overly rejecting or enmeshed.  It made me think of the Knowledge and Understanding framework for Personality Disorder and the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway and how they both (in my experience) aim to challenge labels, offer a understandable and empathic alternative to a diagnosis and “try to keep thinking at all levels in the organisation”.  It also made me think of the NICE guidelines for Borderline Personality Disorder which encourage trusts to set up specialist services to “provide consultation and advice” which in my experience has been a similar “let’s forget about labels and understand what’s going on approach”.  Now the KUF, the OPD and the NICE guidelines are heavily loaded with the PD label, but as they offer a non diagnostic approach is that a price worth paying to get organisations thinking differently?  In systems that are welded to a hierarchical, diagnostic system, are these tools a wedge to get different thinking in?  Many will think not but one of the reasons I often berate Wales for not following NICE guidelines is because without a mechanism in the organisation to promote thinking, people mindlessly (often with good intentions) do what they have always done.   One of the comments about the use of team formulation is that getting a team together to think for an hour costs a lot of money.  It does.  But locking someone in a “specialist” placement for a year costs £200,000 and if formulation stops that happening once then its paid for itself until most of the team have retired.

Jacqui Dillion (Dr Jacqui Dillion no less) finished the day off with a description of her journey through life, services and activism.  It was a captivating talk with far too many people who you might expect to be helpful being outright abusive.  We heard experiences being discounted as illness, emotions being discounted as illness, anger about not being believed discounted as illness and a host of people who should have helped replicating the abuse of the past.  It was this part of the day I found most affecting and it was heartening to hear Jacqui talking of what made life liveable for her again.  Not some magic therapy but someone who would listen, someone who would validate and someone who empathise.  Someone who could give a different perspective to those who told her she was evil and bad.  I’m going to butcher this quote but it was something along the lines of “We are traumatised by relational abuses and we need relationships to get past them”.  For all those on the ward and the CMHT who don’t know how to help I’d urge you to read that sentence again.

Jacqui asked how many people worked in mental health and a bunch of hands shot up.  She told us that you have to be a bit odd to choose to do this.  I tend to agree and I often wonder if what gets labelled as personality disorder is the combination of those who get all their self worth from helping people in distress meeting those who understandably cannot trust those who are supposed to care.  Much to think about…

Having left the event I’d share what one of the delegates voiced with frustration, that this is all just common sense.  It is, but we need to find a way to inject it into systems that run like they have always run and are paralysed by the fear of being blamed.  My only gripe of the day is that there wasn’t much of a chance to interact with the other delegates.  Even if there had been my suspicion is that the event wasn’t populated by senior managers and clinicians from the NHS.  I think people left validated rather than converted but again, this is no bad thing.  We might also have left a bit angry.  ‘Anger is an energy’ was quoted (but not attributed to the Sex Pistols).  I quite like ‘Anger is a gift’ from Rage Against the Machine.  Certainly people left with anger but also with some ideas around how to apply it.

Part of the theme of the day was how labels can stigmatise and stop us seeing people.  We talked a lot about the value of stories, how people are made of stories (not sure I agree, but certainly our perceptions of others are), and how “recovery” was about getting a story that portrayed you as a survivor of adversity rather than someone who was disordered or ill.  We have the power to influence the stories that are told about people and I left today inspired to tell better ones. To tell stories about people, about why difficulties make sense and about ways in which we can help.  I want an alternative to a Daily Mail letter that talks only of illness and tablets, and in the midst of all the evils of the world, I want to tell stories that are full of hope.

I’d heartily recommend attending one of these events and there are details of the next ones here…

For a bit of balance, here is another view around critiquing diagnosis which I found interesting.

www.adisorder4everyone.com

Keir is the Clinical Lead of Beamconsultancy.co.uk and provides Training, Consultation and Therapy around the issues often labelled as Personality Disorder

*Thanks/Curses to @sisaysPSYCHOSIS for pointing out that I don’t know my Sex Pistols from my Public Image Limited.  That will teach me to be so smug.

Why Prince Harry has set the mental health world back 200 years.

It seems habitual for me to write about rugby in these blogs lately but why interfere with a winning (unless you read the stats) formula.  So 2 weeks ago Prince Harry poked his head above the trench and spoke about some of the mental health problems that he has experienced in his life.   What surprised me was some of the negativity that surrounded his sharing of his experiences.  The issues that I came across most were

1 Why the hell are we talking about this millionaire who has been a bit sad when there are people with real problems who can’t get help?

2  It’s all very well for you, a privately educated millionaire to tell people to seek help that doesn’t exist.  Go and live in a tower block and once you’ve queued on the phone for an hour to see your GP she can tell you about waiting lists, service gaps and a mindfulness leaflet

The issue with point 1 is that people regularly share their desperation, pain, and feelings of hopelessness on social media and the response they get is relatively muted.  Some of their friends are interested.  They might even get a like or retweet but in general, the world moves on.  Two weeks ago someone talked about having some mental health problems and it was on every news program, every newspaper and social media exploded with people sharing thoughts about Harry’s story.  Even those typing “But what about people with real problems” missed the irony that they were only typing that in that moment because of the choice that Harry had made.

Point 2 has a bit more substance to it.  One of the benefits of private healthcare is that people will take your money and do what you want very quickly.  Harry need only have thought “I think I need to talk to someone” and it probably happened the next day.  So we can all agree that Harry’s experience of accessing help was different to the majority of other people’s.  We might also agree that it’s as useful for Harry to extol the virtues of seeking help as it is for him to encourage people to drink more water during a drought.  If there’s nothing around then there is no point asking for it.

 Both of these miss the point of how helpful it was for Harry to speak out.  (Here comes the rugby part)

I’ve played rugby for about 25 years now.  During this time I’ve known men with piles who have poked them back in while we were showering, I’ve known men talk of the colour, volume and aroma of their ‘nether’ discharges, I have seen men compare and contrast the size of various ‘private’ rashes, bumps and blemishes.  Not once, not once have I ever heard anyone talk about their mental health problems.  That’s not to say that mental health isn’t discussed, but it belongs to another realm.  A realm of nutters, loonies and those who are very different to us.  We are ragingly, emphatically sane while those ‘others’ are broken, weak and flawed in some way. 

So I’m suggesting here that mental health carries a greater stigma than sexually transmitted diseases.  What Harry has done, and what I truly think everyone should be grateful for, is something that erodes some of the stigma surrounding mental health.  “But what good does this do?” we cry, knowing that services struggle to cope with the business they have, let alone another 50 customers walking through the door next week.  Well, let’s remember some statistics (and as I’m reading them I’m not terribly convinced, but here goes) in 2014 there were 4882 suicides in England.  Of those 751 were current mental health patients.  Even if those figures are way out we can see that the majority of people who come to the conclusion that death is the only way out do so without ever setting foot in a CMHT, my uncle included.  I’m going to suggest that the majority of people who kill themselves carry a huge sense of shame.  The weight of the burden they carry drags them down and due to society’s attitudes towards mental health problems it is better to die than it is to share that burden with someone else.  

When I was a much younger man there was a period in life where I felt that I’d lost just about everything that was important, that the future was going to bring only more misery and that a potential solution to this dilemma was to go rock climbing (which I’d never done) up a massive cliff.  During this period I had a best friend who I could talk to anything about and after I shared my ideas with him he helped me think up a few solutions and even got into the car with me to drive off and put them into action.  Without having him in my life and without having the (courage? Foolishness? Vision?) to get what was in my head out of my mouth I could easily have become a statistic.  What I’m saying is that talking about mental health problems isn’t necessarily seeing a therapist.  It’s telling your friend, your partner, your boss that you’re struggling.  It’s about voicing the thing that you know people will hate and despise you for and finding that they accept you.  It’s about turning thoughts into words so that people can examine them with you, rather than having to carry them yourself with the certainty that every bleak thought and every hopeless prediction is 100% accurate.

But for people who need treatment there’s still no services!!!!  That’s true but for me the thing that makes things change in the NHS is demand.  Now that can be demand in the form of a queue of people out of the door or DEMAND as in people screaming that they are (literally ) as mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore.  To go back to the genital urinary analogy from earlier, if the wise people in my town’s NHS decided to radically cut the funding of the GUM clinic the response would be…..muted.  There would be no marching in the streets, there would be no celebrity endorsements of the campaign.  No one would make too much of a fuss because it’s just too noxious a brush to be tarred by.  The same is true to an extent of mental health.  Hugely underfunded in both services and research this is largely because people don’t campaign about it to the same extent that they do for heart disease or cancer.  Someone who dies of cancer ‘lost a battle’ someone who died by suicide ‘gave up or couldn’t take it any more’, as if mental health problems aren’t something that can affect anyone, just a thing that weak people choose.

Prince Harry is the highest profile ‘normal’ person to talk about his experience of loss and managing strong emotions that we call mental health problems.  If he can have them and he’s normal, maybe other normal people can admit they struggle too.  Maybe we can rethink our ideas about what normal might mean.   If more people share that they struggle, maybe they won’t have to kill themselves.  If more people go to their GP for help, if the queues for therapy get longer and if more normal people shout, write to their MPs, complain, and/or march in the streets then the government will have to listen.  By saying it’s ok to talk about mental health problems, Harry showed that it was OK to have mental health problems and for that alone we should celebrate and recognise the good that he has done. 

On the other hand I loathe the phrase ‘we all have mental health’…..

 

 

An Overview of “Personality Disorder”

This is a little collection I put together for the people I was training with the other week.  I’m sure there are loads of gaps so if you think something essential is missing do let me know.  Hope you find it useful.

Personality Disorder services in the UK

The very recent Personality Disorder Consensus Statement

And Personality disorder on the BBC

The idea that people who were labelled as having a personality disorder were part of the core work of mental health services first gained traction in 2003 with the publication of the seminal No Longer A Diagnosis of Exclusion

Doing The Work

This is the Ministry of Justice Guide to working with people with Personality Disorder.  Lots of stats, facts and figures

This is the Guide to working with people diagnosed with personality disorder, written by people who identify with personality disorder.

Stigma

This talks about other ways of thinking of ‘manipulation’ – Why Are People With Personality Disorder So Manipulative?

This brilliantly encapsulates how once we have a picture of what someone is like in our mind, everything they do can be twisted to fit that picture: How Not To Get A Diagnosis of Personality Disorder  

This again highlights the damage a label can do: Testimonial Injustice and Borderline Personality Disorder

The Not So Nice Guidelines for Borderline Personality Disorder.  A bit funny but a bit too accurate.

Safer Care for Patients With Personality Disorder is both a collection of statistics around people with the diagnosis who killed themselves, and a survey of peoples experience of living with the diagnosis.  Best/Worst statistic – Not one of the people who died by suicide was receiving NICE recommended care.

For people who have just been given a diagnosis

This personal account is a good start.  Lots of resources in there. By the excellent Sue Sibbald @BPDFFS

What works? 

This gives an overview of MBT, DBT, TFT and GPM.  GPM is interesting (something similar over here known as “Structured Clinical Management”) as it is delivered by generic workers rather than specialists. 

Schema therapy

Therapeutic Communities – My favourite way of working with people

Dialectical Behaviour Therapy(DBT) – Often described as the only NICE recommended therapy, which it isn’t.

What “should” we do?

NICE Guidelines Self Harm

NICE Borderline Personality Disorder – The personal accounts of people who have been through services are really interesting.  Also gives an overview of different interventions.

NICE Antisocial Personality Disorder

But services might be a bit more like this:

https://recoveryinthebindotorg.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/not-so-nice-full.pdf

What makes the work hard?

The Ailment by Tom Maine This isn’t the best copy but this is an excellent article that describes the impact complexity can have on staff.

This talks about Trauma Informed Care and why ‘what we usually do’ often isn’t helpful. 

With research suggesting up to 78% of people in prison could be diagnosed with personality disorder, here’s some relevant things to read –

The Working With Offenders booklet again.

The Bradley Report – This looks at mental health problems and learning disability within the criminal justice system

The Corston Report – Specifically about Women in criminal justice

Women and Girls at Risk – A heartbreaking read about the disadvantage women face throughout their lives.

 

And finally

https://themainoffenderblog.wordpress.com/

A very articulate account of what it’s like living with BPD

Online resources:

http://www.dbtselfhelp.com/ –  Lots of stuff  to work through – All DBT flavour

Sunday night chats on twitter #BPDChat – Also with a DBT flavour.

Keir Harding provides Training, Consultancy and Therapy around complex mental health problems via www.beamconsultancy.co.uk

Below is a way of talking about complex emotional difficulties without talking labelling them Personality Disorder.

An important area of mental health that is getting increasingly recognised is the way people express various forms of emotional distress. It can cause various behaviours:

People harm themselves, for example by cutting their arms
Drinking unsafe amounts of alcohol
Taking illegal drugs regularly, excessively or irresponsibly
Misusing prescribed medications (or those available over-the-counter at pharmacies)
By impulsive and reckless actions that could have have serious consequences, like driving too fast or having unsafe sex
Chaotic eating patterns – such as bingeing, vomiting, abusing laxatives or continuously eating too much.

In addition, people with these problems often have repeated difficulties in relationships in ways like this:

Never keep friends very long
Cannot hold down a job
Isolated and lonely
Violence in intimate relationships
Over-sensitivity to criticism
Argumentative with people in authority
Feeling very abandoned when left alone or people leave
Unable to cope with making any decisions without help
Often switching between loving and hating family members.

Many people will experience these things at some time during their lives, perhaps in response to stress, but some are severely troubled by many of them for most of their lives. These could be called ‘long-standing emotional problems’, and they often go right back to childhood. In mental health services they are sometimes known by diagnoses like ‘complex needs’, ‘personality disorder’, ‘borderline’ or ‘severe and enduring non-psychotic disorder’.

Although it is not always the case, people with these types of difficulties have usually had difficult childhoods, with adversities like repeated trauma, or physical, emotional or sexual abuse, or neglect and deprivation, or several severe losses and bereavements. On the other hand, some people who suffer very harsh childhoods seem to be somehow ‘protected’ from the long-term psychological damage it can do. Unfortunately, there is no easy way of finding out who will have more problems and who will have less – although research is always being done to help us understand these matters better.

People who suffer in these ways often do so silently, without getting any help and often feeling guilty or ashamed of how they ‘are’. They often do not even know that they have a problem that others have too – and can become very isolated and lonely with it. In fact, these problems are very common, and increasingly recognised. The reason people behave the way they do, and have the difficult relationships they do, is usually to deal with their feelings, and to try and cope with them. But their actions often do not help enough, and they can make matters worse.

Very commonly, the behaviours can be confusing and upsetting, and this is as true for the people themselves as for those around them. This is because there is a lack of information and understanding about how these things arise, unwillingness to think and talk about them, and little knowledge about what can be done to support someone in this sort of emotional turmoil.

Although it is often the easiest route, there is recent research and NICE guidelines which suggest that medication is not usually the best way to deal with these problems. In the NHS, psychological treatment often helps, and this may take different forms. However, short-term ‘quick fix’ treatments and therapies are rarely very much help. Some psychiatric services are good at helping people with these problems, but because the number of people affected has only recently been recognised, many mental health staff do not yet have good training to deal with it.

In this situation, one of the things that can be very helpful is to help people to feel less alone and ‘odd’ – and for this, other people who have suffered similar feelings are usually better than professionals at understanding what it is like.

(This was taken from the Emergence website)

And those are some things that might help you understand whatever personality disorder means and what might help.  Again, if something is missing let me know.

Keir

 Keir Harding provides Training, Consultancy and Therapy around complex mental health problems via www.beamconsultancy.co.uk

Why are people with Personality Disorder so manipulative?

Keir is a Lead Therapist in an NHS Specialist Service and provides training, consultation and therapy around complex mental health problems through beamconsultancy.co.uk

Those diagnosed with personality disorder are manipulative.  This is a fact.  At least, you would think it was a fact if you heard it as many times as I have coming from the mouths of people in the caring professions.  Whenever I’m doing training on personality disorder, there is rarely a session where this fact isn’t voiced at some point.  When it does come out, it isn’t spoken in a timid, tentative way, but with the full throated confidence of someone speaking a truth universally acknowledged.  It is a fact as certain as death and taxes, and because people are so assured that it is a fact, the presence of a service user with a diagnosis of personality disorder in the room does nothing to encourage them to censor their views.

I’m going to spend some time thinking about manipulation, what we might mean by it and whether this is another way of interpreting behaviour in a way that might help carers keep caring.

 Most definitions of manipulation use the terms like clever, skilful or artful, implying a conscious use of talent on behalf of the manipulator. Based on this definition, we all manipulate the people in our lives in that we consciously try to get them to do what we want.  Being good manipulators, we hope to do this while keeping people liking us.  This is the skill.  It is not the forcing of our will onto others but being able influence people while keeping them on our side.  The problem that people with personality disorders have is that they are awful manipulators. Very often in my life women who are older than me tend to mother me.  If I look a bit flustered or helpless, they will frequently step in and do things for me that I’m perfectly capable of doing myself.  At the end of it, we all tend to like each other a bit more.  I’m in their debt and they feel they’ve been useful.  You can argue that this is a skilful bit of interaction, but based on the definition above, you could also argue that I’m manipulating people.  Let’s contrast this with me walking into the office and shouting “If someone doesn’t give me a lift into town, I’m going to fucking kill myself and it will be your fault.”  I have no doubt that the people in the office would indeed take me into town.  Whether they would ever want anything to do with me in the future is another matter.  Again, lets have a think about what might be the actions of a skilful arch manipulator, and what might be someone with really ineffective ways of getting their needs met.  A good manipulator gets what they want and people like them.  A bad manipulator gets what they want and people resent them.

It wasn’t a million years ago that I shared the ‘personality disorder = arch manipulator’ view. I used to work in a team where at least once a week a man would phone to tell us he was suicidal.  What followed would invariably be a 30 minute phone call where I desperately tried to get him to tell me he would be ok.  He rarely did.  Every suggestion of what to do had already been tried.  Every option had been explored and found wanting.  It said on his careplan to phone when he was suicidal and here he was phoning.  Now what was I going to do about it?  The answer was always nothing particularly useful.  While I was being berated for my incompetence I tended to feel powerless, useless and for someone who came to work to make people better, pretty bad at my job.  It would be fair to say that I hated the way he ‘made’ me feel and I know that many of my responses on the phone were far more about me trying to ‘win’ than they were about trying to provide care.  Because he had phoned weekly for years, I knew the actual risk of him committing suicide was pretty static and that the phone calls didn’t reflect a significant change.  In my head this guy was sat at home planning different ways that he could torture me.  I saw him rejoicing in my discomfort, raising his fist in the air (as I did) when he felt he’d refuted an argument and hanging up the phone after a particularly vitriolic exchange happy with a job well done.  My team were very helpful in supporting me with my view of him and we would have many conversations that built up a picture of someone whose sole pleasure in life was my misery.

It’s hard to be particularly caring to someone who at best, I wished would leave me alone.  Because I took the majority of his phone calls, I sought out some supervision to help me manage what I viewed as a cruel individual.  The supervision was not an enjoyable experience as rather than help me to manage a trouble maker, the supervisor started pulling apart the foundations of the power crazed manipulator I had built up.  He asked me what the service user was looking for when he called and what in his life might explain the way he interacted the way he did.  He got me to see how unhelpful the picture I had of the client was and even worse, how I might be exacerbating and maintaining some of the very things that did my head in.  That was the first time that everything I thought I knew about ‘personality disorder’ had been challenged and now I reflect on it, the first step towards me choosing this area for my career.

The point of the above is that I can sympathise with the view that people diagnosed with personality disorder are manipulators and it’s a view that I’ve held myself.  Now let’s try a different way of looking at things.

Within DBT (Linehan 1993) manipulation would be viewed as poor interpersonal effectiveness.  Most of us come from a background that helped us to be effective.  We know how to get our needs met while keeping people on our side.  We know that when we raise the intensity of our communication by being more assertive or even hostile and rude, we run the risk of damaging the relationship with that person.  We generally know that if we need help someone will do something and that we can say no to requests that are unreasonable.  People who tend to be diagnosed with personality disorder haven’t come from the same background and as a result, they don’t have the same skill set as the average person in the street.  They might have come from a background where your needs were only met if you screamed blue murder.  They might have come from a background where people modelled that threats and violence were the only way to get people to do what you want.  They might have only been cared for when they were physically hurt or they might never have been taught to put their feelings into words.  They might….and on and on.  The gist of this is that we will see peoples past relationships in their present ones if we look for them.  If we look hard enough, we can see how people have been taught to interact the way we do.  If we’re being brutally honest with ourselves we might see how what we do keeps some of these problems going.  If we only spend time with people when they’re in crisis, if we only increase input when they self harm or we reduce our contact as soon as they’re ‘doing well’,  we can be playing a big part in keeping some of the more difficult to manage behaviours going.

It might also be worth thinking about splitting, where “people with personality disorder ‘play staff off against each other’ and form special relationships with particular carers”.  Splitting in teams certainly happens but I wonder if us staff ignore the part we play.  Instead we blame the client and think of them as an evil puppet master, pulling strings that ‘make’ us act.    Now I come from a background that taught me I was loved and valued.  Despite this I tend to gravitate towards people I perceive as warm, friendly and interested in me.  People labelled with personality disorder have the same tendency.  When in a frightening place it makes sense for them to particularly attach to staff who show the most warmth or have some characteristic that feels safe.  It makes more sense to strengthen that relationship by giving gifts, telling secrets and ‘being good’ for them.  Those staff care.  They need to be hung on to.  The relationship can also be strengthened by distancing yourself from people who are more cold, apathetic, hostile or just different.  By being difficult for the ‘other’ ones or only working with the special ones the special relationship is emphasised . This isn’t a cold, calculated endeavour to cause chaos, but a natural response from someone whose early experience of carers was different to our own.  In The Ailment, Tom Main (1957) gives the example of a baby crying in a room full of people.  They will compete to sooth it and some will succeed.  In an innocent way the baby evokes some rivalries in the people around it.  It might become distressed by these rivalries and might even make them worse in the quest for comfort.  While the baby hasn’t caused the rivalry (or split), its behaviour which draws in some while pushing away other inflames them.  The baby (fairly understandably) is pretty poor at managing the people around him but he does the best with what he has.  The split isn’t his fault. 

We can also think about what gets called personality disorder as a difficulty in managing strong emotions.  Often people with this label were never taught to manage their emotions, they had people in their lives who modelled ineffective ways of coping or they learned that only intense expressions were effective.  When on the receiving end of these powerful emotional communications it’s important to remember how well we are able to think when we are at our most frightened and angry.  When working with those who have been taught that the world is out to hurt them or those who are terrified at the prospect of being left alone, it is understandable that strong emotional responses will be a part of many of our interactions.  When angry or afraid we all want to manage the immediate threat and pay less attention to what happens in the long term.  If we can view people as feeling threatened or terrified, if we can understand why they might do all they can to achieve a short term goal again, it is harder to keep that picture of a skilful arch manipulator. 

We started with a picture of people diagnosed with personality disorder as calculating master manipulators.  We’re now at a place where we might see that some behaviours are exaggerated natural responses while others are the product of poor interpersonal skills.  We might substitute the idea of people intentionally causing chaos with people doing the best they can with what they’ve got.  Holding this in mind is essential for keeping some care in the caring professions.  It is nigh on impossible to care for someone who you think is deliberately trying to hurt you simply for the pleasure it will give them.  If we can ask ourselves why the client communicates in this way and find an explanation in their past then we can keep empathy.  While we have empathy, we can show compassion.

We live and work in busy times.  There is little time to search peoples records for clues from their past.  Action is valued, reflection looks a lot like doing nothing.  We do little good for our clientele when we act without empathy and yet the pressure to act on what is in front of us is immense.  Perhaps next time we feel that pressure to act we might do it with a person who has missed out on some of the skills we have in mind.  We can notice the sense that we’re being manipulated and wonder what that might mean in the context of an unskilful person trying to get their needs met.  It doesn’t mean that our actions will be different but it might mean we might communicate in a more caring way.

We all manipulate.  People who tend to be diagnosed with personality disorder are just particularly bad at it. 

Keir is a Lead Therapist in an NHS Specialist Service and provides training, consultation and therapy around complex mental health problems through beamconsultancy.co.uk

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive Behavioral Treatmentof Borderline Personality Disorder. New York: Guilford Press.

Main TF. The Ailment. Br J Med Psychol. 1957; 30:129-45.

 

As ever, all of the above is just an idea to play with.  Don’t take it as fact.  Other ideas are available...