Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30991971›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2019

Recovery-focused mental health care planning and co-ordination in acute inpatient mental health settings: a cross national comparative mixed methods study.

Michael Coffey, Ben Hannigan, Sally Barlow, Martin Cartwright, Rachel Cohen, Alison Faulkner, Aled Jones, Alan Simpson

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Michael CoffeyDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Social Sciences, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK. m.j.coffey@swansea.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0380-4704
Ben HanniganSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 0AB, UK.
Sally BarlowCentre for Mental Health Research, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, Northampton, Square, EC1V 0HB, UK.
Martin CartwrightCentre for Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, Square, EC1V 0HB, Northampton, UK.
Rachel CohenCentre for Academic Mental Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK.
Alison FaulknerIndependent Service User Researcher Consultant, London, UK.
Aled JonesSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 0AB, UK.
Alan SimpsonCentre for Mental Health Research, School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, Northampton, Square, EC1V 0HB, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 13/10/75
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInvolving mental health service users in planning and reviewing their care can help personalised care focused on recovery, with the aim of developing goals specific to the individual and designed to maximise achievements and social integration. We aimed to ascertain the views of service users, carers and staff in acute inpatient wards on factors that facilitated or acted as barriers to collaborative, recovery-focused care.

methodsA cross-national comparative mixed-methods study involving 19 mental health wards in six service provider sites in England and Wales. This included a survey using established standardised measures of service users (n = 301) and staff (n = 290) and embedded case studies involving interviews with staff, service users and carers (n = 76). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed within and across sites using descriptive and inferential statistics, and framework method.

resultsFor service users, when recovery-oriented focus was high, the quality of care was rated highly, as was the quality of therapeutic relationships. For staff, there was a moderate correlation between recovery orientation and quality of therapeutic relationships, with considerable variability. Staff members rated the quality of therapeutic relationships higher than service users did. Staff accounts of routine collaboration contrasted with a more mixed picture in service user accounts. Definitions and understandings of recovery varied, as did views of hospital care in promoting recovery. Managing risk was a central issue for staff, and service users were aware of measures taken to keep them safe, although their involvement in discussions was less apparent.

conclusionsThere is positive practice within acute inpatient wards, with evidence of commitment to safe, respectful, compassionate care. Recovery ideas were evident but there remained ambivalence on their relevance to inpatient care. Service users were aware of efforts taken to keep them safe, but despite measures described by staff, they did not feel routinely involved in care planning or risk management decisions. Research on increasing therapeutic contact time, shared decision making in risk assessment and using recovery focused tools could further promote personalised and recovery-focused care planning. This paper arises from a larger study published by National Institute for Health Research (Simpson A, et al, Health Serv Deliv Res 5(26), 2017).

Indexed as

Mental Health RecoveryMental Health ServicesPsychiatric Department, HospitalDecision MakingEnglandFemaleHealth PersonnelHospitalizationHumansInpatientsMaleMental DisordersMental HealthSurveys and QuestionnairesWalesAcuteCare planningInpatient carePersonalisationRecoveryRiskTherapeutic relationships

Identifiers

PMID30991971
PMCPMC6469117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.