Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Those who are contesting the results of the competition in Trieste fear that behind the appointment of the winner of the competition there is a restoration manoeuvre promoted by the regional political council, the expression of right-wing parties. Health Councillor Riccardo Riccardi has already declared several times that there is no such intention. In any case, it must be considered that there are three possible options for change:
1) the reopening of asylums or similar facilities: clearly this is not possible because this is a national and not a regional law. No Italian model, apart from that of Trieste, provides for the re-establishment of psychiatric hospitals;
2) a shift towards psychiatry with a greater private component: this already happens in other Italian regions and it is possible that there is an intention of this type in the regional council;
3) a reduction in funds for mental health: the regional system is currently in great distress and this is due to various causes (lack of psychiatrists, failure to hire educators and rehabilitation technicians, strong growth in disorders for which the MHDs are not adequately equipped, etc.), but certainly a reduction in funding for mental health would bring the whole system to its knees. And this is also possible in relation to the expenses incurred as a result of COVID-19.
In short, the outcome of a competition (which can be challenged by law) should be distinguished from an alleged counter-reform project that would return to the past or economically penalise the mental health system. At the moment, it would be useful for everyone to rely on facts and not on ideological oppositions. The facts are that a competition has had its outcome, while on the contrary no dismantling of mental health services has taken place so far. The future will tell whether the outcome of this competition will be the beginning of a process of obtuse counter-reform. I believe that this will not happen, but if it does, I will certainly be among the first to oppose it.
Balestrieri M, Rucci P, Amendola D, et al. Emergency Psychiatric Consultations During and After the COVID-19 Lockdown in Italy. A Multicentre Study. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jun 15;12:697058.
Matteo Balestrieri
Full Professor of Psychiatry, University of Udine
Director of the University Psychiatric Clinic, ASUFC, Udine
Director of the School of Specialisation in Psychiatry, University of Udine
Re: Trieste’s mental healthcare model is under threat, claim supporters of the community based approach
Dear Editor,
Those who are contesting the results of the competition in Trieste fear that behind the appointment of the winner of the competition there is a restoration manoeuvre promoted by the regional political council, the expression of right-wing parties. Health Councillor Riccardo Riccardi has already declared several times that there is no such intention. In any case, it must be considered that there are three possible options for change:
1) the reopening of asylums or similar facilities: clearly this is not possible because this is a national and not a regional law. No Italian model, apart from that of Trieste, provides for the re-establishment of psychiatric hospitals;
2) a shift towards psychiatry with a greater private component: this already happens in other Italian regions and it is possible that there is an intention of this type in the regional council;
3) a reduction in funds for mental health: the regional system is currently in great distress and this is due to various causes (lack of psychiatrists, failure to hire educators and rehabilitation technicians, strong growth in disorders for which the MHDs are not adequately equipped, etc.), but certainly a reduction in funding for mental health would bring the whole system to its knees. And this is also possible in relation to the expenses incurred as a result of COVID-19.
In short, the outcome of a competition (which can be challenged by law) should be distinguished from an alleged counter-reform project that would return to the past or economically penalise the mental health system. At the moment, it would be useful for everyone to rely on facts and not on ideological oppositions. The facts are that a competition has had its outcome, while on the contrary no dismantling of mental health services has taken place so far. The future will tell whether the outcome of this competition will be the beginning of a process of obtuse counter-reform. I believe that this will not happen, but if it does, I will certainly be among the first to oppose it.
Balestrieri M, Rucci P, Amendola D, et al. Emergency Psychiatric Consultations During and After the COVID-19 Lockdown in Italy. A Multicentre Study. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jun 15;12:697058.
Matteo Balestrieri
Full Professor of Psychiatry, University of Udine
Director of the University Psychiatric Clinic, ASUFC, Udine
Director of the School of Specialisation in Psychiatry, University of Udine
Competing interests: No competing interests