Is headspace making a difference to young people’s lives?

5. Service Delivery Model
Table 5.3 Proportion of main service type at headspace 32
Main service provided during this visit All visits First visit Last visit
Mental health 65.0 14.2 73.9
Engagement and assessment 23.7 77.4 11.2
Physical health 3.4 2.5 4.0
Sexual health 1.5 2.4 2.6
Group work 1.7 0.7 1.4
Alcohol and/or drug specific intervention 1.2 0.6 1.6
General assistance 1.1 0.6 1.6
Vocational 1.1 0.5 1.4
Family-based intervention 0.3 0.1 0.5
Dietary counselling 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other because not matched 1.1 1.2 1.7
Source: Authors calculations from hCSA data.
Future care decision data provided in Table 5.2 indicate that few young people are formally referred
from headspace to external services. This suggests that headspace is largely successful in providing
comprehensive health care that meets the multiple needs of young people, as intended by centres
which were established to provide holistic care in a single location. Interview data indicates that the
range of services provided in-house by the sites’ consortium partners/co-located services/private
practitioners influenced the degree to which staff needed to source additional support services from
the community and/or broader service system. Sites with a large number of consortium partners
servicing a broad range of support needs could often provide integrated services in-house. This is
a positive result as young people are more likely to disengage from a service if there are multiple
contact points; however, it also suggests that the service model may not be effective in connecting
young people to other services the community.
Qualitative and survey data indicates that this is not the case and presents a picture of staff
frequently referring young people to other services. Staff in all five fieldwork sites spoke of making
referrals to other services in their community when the support the young person required could not
be provided in-house. It is suggested that the future care data captured in the hCSA under-counts
the extent of formal or written referrals as limited exit data is collected, which is due to the fact that
many young people simply stop attending a centre when they feel better. In addition, headspace
staff frequently make informal referrals (that is, those made verbally) and these are not counted in
the hCSA data. Importantly though, these referrals do connect young people to relevant services
available within their community.
While connections with the broader system were considered to be good for the most part, several
staff felt that there was always room for improvement. Some felt that links with schools, Centrelink
and GPs could be strengthened in order to increase referrals to headspace.
5.10 What perceived impact has headspace had on the skill and confidence of GPs
regarding the provision of youth mental health care? To what extent do they
report changes to practices as a result?
The Survey of Professional Stakeholders included a section that examined whether and how
headspace had impacted on the practices, skills and confidence of general practitioners in the
provision of youth mental health care. Of the total 207 that completed the survey, 43 were General
Practitioners (GPs). While this sample size is small and cannot be used to generalise findings, the
results provide a clear picture of limited collaboration, and suggests ways that this can be changed to
enhance service delivery.
32
3.6% of occasions of service have missing service type information. Clients who visited headspace only one during
the 2013/14 financial year are not counted as the last visit.
Social Policy Research Centre 2015
headspace Evaluation Final Report
93