Search results

This paper aims to describe how a patient centred recovery approach was implemented in a secure learning disabilities service.

There are no specific tools for measuring recovery in a secure learning disabilities service. The Recovery Star; a measure of individual recovery was adopted for use among the patients. Staff underwent training on the use of the Recovery Star tool after which a multidisciplinary steering group made some modifications to the tool. Training was cascaded to staff throughout the service and use of the Recovery Star tool was embedded in the care programme approach process.

It was found that implementing a recovery approach with the Recovery Star tool was a beneficial process for the service but that services will require a whole systems approach to implementing recovery. Key workers working with patients thought that the structure of the Recovery Star tool opened up avenues for discussing topics covered in the domains of the Recovery Star tool which may otherwise have not been discussed as fully.

The availability of a tool, integrated into existing service processes, e.g. care programme approach and accompanied by a systems approach, equips patients and staff for articulating and measuring the recovery journey.

The paper shows that the Recovery Star tool, embedded in a care programme approach process, equips patients and staff for measuring the recovery journey.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact on recovery and personal goal attainment of a transition intervention service for return to the community following exit from an alternative to psychiatric inpatient admission – a residential recovery house. The services seek to facilitate community reintegration, promote recovery and prevent future mental health crisis. The service was funded by the Stone Family Foundation.

This evaluation employed a within groups design: a single case evaluation follow-up. Analysis of Recovery Star and personal goal achievement data collected at service entry and exit points during routine practice (n=181), at four sites in England. The adults had mental illness diagnoses including depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, personality disorder, and anxiety disorder.

There was a significant increase in overall Recovery Star scores with a large effect size, and significant increases in eight of the ten Recovery Star life domains. There were significant increases in the goal scores linked to “Managing mental health”, “Self-care” and “Living skills”.

A transitional intervention service provided by the third sector for return to community following mental health crisis may contribute to recovery and personal goal achievement. A randomised control trial of this transition intervention service is recommended.

This is first outcome evaluation of an alternative to psychiatric inpatient admission transition intervention service and findings indicate the potential positive effect of having this service incorporated into the design of alternative to admission provision.

This paper aims to describe the origin, development and increasing application of the Recovery Star within the UK.

The mental health Recovery Star is an holistic and personalised outcomes measurement and recovery‐focused key working tool and it was designed primarily for people of working age. The author describes its origin, development, and increasing application within the UK.

The paper finds that the Recovery Star has been instrumental in promoting social inclusion for many service users, their carers and families.

The paper discusses the Recovery Star as an innovative tool developed by Triangle Consulting and the Mental Health Providers Forum, one which has rapidly established itself as the recovery tool of choice for many service users and providers and fits in well with the personalisation agenda.

To evaluate the impact of crisis house admission in terms of mental health recovery and achievement of personal goals for people using the service.

Mental Health Recovery Star (Recovery Star) and Personal Goal Scoring data were collected at entry and exit points in routine practice as part of a bespoke support planning process from 722 adults using one of three Rethink Mental Illness Crisis Houses. The adults had mental illness diagnoses including depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, personality disorder, and anxiety disorder.

There were significant increases in all ten Recovery Star domains, for example: managing mental health (up 2.11 points (1-10 scale)), identity and self-esteem (up 1.56 points), trust and hope (up 1.48 points), and self-care (up 1.35 points). The analysis of Personal Goal Scoring data (scored on 1-10 scale) showed significant increases on how close people were to achieving their goals. For all goals listed there was an average increase of 2.5 point from 3 to 5.5, showing that people made progress during their stay in the service.

Services provided by the third sector may offer an important contribution to support people's recovery and prevent admission to psychiatric hospital.

The findings of the evaluation study support a growing body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of services offering alternatives to admission, and they highlight the value of using recovery-oriented support planning and outcome capture tools in routine practice.

The Mental Health Recovery Star (MHRS) has received focus at a national policy level in consideration of outcome measurement within mental health services. The purpose of this paper is to seek the views of mental health professionals about its use within clinical practice.

The paper employed a qualitative, exploratory design to interview 12 participants. Thematic analysis was used.

Four main themes were identified: “the utility of the Recovery Star”; “not for everybody”; “service user involvement”; and “the status of the Recovery Star within the Trust”. A range of factors was found to influence participants’ use of the tool with service users.

The paper involved a small number of participants due to a low response rate. Future research could include larger studies and more detailed exploration of factors identified as limiting the use of the MHRS.

The MHRS is a potentially useful tool but its limitations and the influence of organisational context must be considered as part of any plan to systematically implement its use within services.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study of the views of mental health professionals about the MHRS. As it is professionals who are likely to determine whether and how the tool is used, the paper is seen as a valuable initial investigation.

This article describes the approach to modernisation of adult mental health day services taken in Sandwell, which retains a building‐based element to provide for attachment and belonging, while developing community‐based models that promote social integration and recovery.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to present the outline of a methodological approach to help address ten key challenges for the implementation of Recovery‐orientated services.

At the onset of the project the authors produced a policy paper, Making Recovery a Reality. This formed the basis of a series of workshops on implementing Recovery in organisations that were held in five mental health trusts in 2008 and 2009.

A key element driving the transformation of Recovery‐orientated mental health services will be the joint work of local systems, setting priorities, agreeing goals and contracts and then monitoring progress and reviewing.

The impetus for the project arose out of the increasing attention being given to the principles of recovery in government policy and in local mental health services, combined with an increasing frustration that there was little to guide how these principles could be put into practice.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight how mental health recovery may involve family members and supporting the needs of parents who become mental health service users. Policies now recognise the importance of family but how much are they implemented?

A search was carried out for recent papers (past 12 months) on mental health services and the family.

Two papers summarise recent research on family involvement in mental health services. As well as highlighting what prevents families being involved in mental health services and care planning, they discuss what works and some challenges of involvement. A third paper highlights how parents who become service users can have their parenting needs supported as part of their recovery.

All three papers highlight recent developments in relation to the family and recovery. Despite policies about family involvement, there is a need for organisational change to fully incorporate the social nature of mental health and recovery. The papers suggest ways forward based on examples of what works.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the literature to date which has focused on co-production within mental healthcare in the UK, including service user and carer involvement and collaboration.

The paper presents key outcomes from studies which have explicitly attempted to introduce co-produced care in addition to specific tools designed to encourage co-production within mental health services. The paper debates the cultural and ideological shift required for staff, service users and family members to undertake co-produced care and outlines challenges ahead with respect to service redesign and new roles in practice.

Informal carers (family and friends) are recognised as a fundamental resource for mental health service provision, as well as a rich source of expertise through experience, yet their views are rarely solicited by mental health professionals or taken into account during decision making. This issue is considered alongside new policy recommendations which advocate the development of co-produced services and care.

Despite the launch of a number of initiatives designed to build on peer experience and support, there has been a lack of attention on the differing dynamic which remains evident between healthcare professionals and people using mental health services. Co-production sheds a light on the blurring of roles, trust and shared endeavour (Slay and Stephens, 2013) but, despite an increase in peer recovery workers across England, there has been little research or service development designed to focus explicitly on this particular dynamic.

Despite these challenges, coproduction in mental healthcare represents a real opportunity for the skills and experience of family members to be taken into account and could provide a mechanism to achieve the “triangle of care” with input, recognition and respect given to all (service users, carers, professionals) whose lives are touched by mental distress. However, lack of attention in relation to carer perspectives, expertise and potential involvement could undermine the potential for coproduction to act as a vehicle to encourage person-centred care which accounts for social in addition to clinical factors.

The families of people with severe and enduring mental illness assume a major responsibility for the provision of care and support to their relatives over extended time periods (Rose et al., 2004). Involving carers in discussions about care planning could help to provide a wider picture about the impact of mental health difficulties, beyond symptom reduction. The “co-production of care” reflects a desire to work meaningfully and fully with service users and carers. However, to date, little work has been undertaken in order to coproduce services through the “triangle of care” with carers bringing their own skills, resources and expertise.

This paper debates the current involvement of carers across mental healthcare and debates whether co-production could be a vehicle to utilise carer expertise, enhance quality and satisfaction with mental healthcare. The critique of current work highlights the danger of increasing expectations on service providers to undertake work aligned to key initiatives (shared decision-making, person-centred care, co-production), that have common underpinning principles but, in the absence of practical guidance, could be addressed in isolation rather than as an integrated approach within a “triangle of care”.