Search results

This paper challenges readers to reflect on the terms ‘dual diagnosis’ and ‘recovery’ and to consider how the language and concepts that inform practice and policy shape the way we think about our work and relate to service users.

This article considers the recent public debate in the UK on drug classification and the role of the Advisory Council of the Misuse of Drugs, particularly following David Nutt's departure as Chair of the ACMD. It suggests that there have been flaws in the arguments on both sides, and considers some of the implications for wider debate on regulation and control.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the implications for drug and alcohol treatment of radical policy changes being implemented by the government, particularly the proposed transition of responsibility for treatment from the National Treatment Agency to a new public health service from 2013.

It is argued that this is a critical moment in the development of substance misuse services in England, particularly given the impact of health service reform. Concerns are raised about the lack of reference to drug and alcohol treatment in key policy documents, such as the Department of Health's White Paper Healthy Lives, Healthy People. The removal of the “ring fence” from the pooled treatment budget may result in national disinvestment at a time when public spending cuts are likely to reduce local authority spending on drug and alcohol treatment. It will be challenging to deliver on the vision of recovery in the “Drug strategy 2010”.

The new public health structures and the commitment to recovery create new opportunities to improve services too – for example, the potential for joint working through Health and Wellbeing Boards. It is also positive that Healthy Lives, Healthy People stated that the NHS Constitution will apply to the public health service.

While these changes could provide a platform for improving outcomes, there is a genuine risk that substantial disinvestment in drug and alcohol services will be witnessed.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which the two visions of recovery that are now being developed in the UK are consistent with each other and question what impact the development of parallel approaches will have on people at the intersections between them.

The paper looks first at the origins and current implementation of the two approaches and then examines the commonalities and differences in the context of what they might mean for people using both sets of services simultaneously.

The ideas behind Recovery in mental health and substance misuse services have some differences but significant common ground in focusing on improving quality of life.

This paper points to the need to understand recovery in both services from the perspectives of those who have a dual diagnosis and need support from each service.

This paper could be used to develop new approaches to supporting people with a dual diagnosis with a consistent Recovery focus.

Placing personal recovery at the heart of both mental health and substance misuse services may, over time, improve their efficiency and effectiveness.