Exploration of “Talking Groups” within a medium secure setting
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-05-2018-0016 |
| Published date | 12 November 2018 |
| Date | 12 November 2018 |
| Pages | 239-248 |
| Author | Heather Tolland,Heather Laithwaite |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Forensic practice,Sociology,Sociology of crime & law,Law enforcement/correctional,Public policy & environmental management,Policing,Criminal justice |
Exploration of “Talking Groups”within a
medium secure setting
Heather Tolland and Heather Laithwaite
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore patient and staff views of a new intervention “Talking
Groups”within a medium secure setting.
Design/methodology/approach –Seven patients and eight members of staff who had attended Talking
Groups in the medium secure wards participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed
and analysed using thematic analysis.
Findings –The analysis revealed four key themes related to the aims, content and perceived benefits of
Talking Groups: information; relationship building; engagement and patient involvement in developing
activities/interventions.
Practical implications –If Talking Groups are extended to other wards in the medium secure unit,
information sessions should continue as part of the groups, as these were valued by patients and provided
useful information about transition, human rights and medication.
Originality/value –The findings suggest that Talking Groups have benefits for patients and staff within this
medium secure setting. Findings from this evaluation can be used to inform the development of Talking
Groups across different wards in this unit.
Keywords Forensic, Inpatient, Recovery, Qualitative, Medium secure, Service user views,
Ward talking groups
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The concept of recovery has become prominent in mental health services in the UK, with
Forensic services in Scotland moving towards a recovery oriented approach in line with general
mental health services and national guidelines (Forensic Matrix, 2012; Scottish Government,
2012). In broad terms, “recovery”in the mental health context can be understood as a person
having hope, choice and control over their lives, despite having a mental illness. There is no
agreed universal definition of recovery, however the following processes have been argued to be
relevant: connectedness; hope and optimism; identity; meaning and purpose and empowerment
or CHIME (Leamy et al., 2011). Recovery in itself is not an intervention; however services can
adapt their practice to facilitate this process for individuals, guided by key themes, including
those defined by the CHIME model.
Specific challenges to the recovery process exist in a forensic mental health secure setting.
People in this environment lack control over their own lives due to the restrictions that come with
being in a forensic unit (Barnao et al., 2015). In addition, many people receiving forensic services
have experienced social disadvantage throughout their lives and are subject to the double
stigmatisation of being an offender and having a mental illness (Hartwell, 2004; Laithwaite and
Gumley, 2007; Mezey et al., 2010; West et al., 2018).
Members of staff also have the potentially conflicting roles of managing the risk of reoffending
of the individual and maintaining a recovery focused approach that emphasises choice and
empowerment (Pouncey and Lukens, 2010; Mann et al., 2014). Despite these challenges, a
small number of published studies have identified factors that can contribute to a recovery
Received 11 May 2018
Revised 3 August 2018
Accepted 7 September 2018
The authors thank Dr Kelly
Reynolds and all facilitators who
worked hard in establishing and
running the groups. The authors
are extremely grateful to all
patients and staff who gave up
their time to participate in
interviews.
Dr Heather Tolland is Research
Assistant at NHS Greater
Glasgow & Clyde, UK.
Dr Heather Laithwaite is the
Head of Forensic Clinical
Psychology at NHS Forth
Valley, Falkirk, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JFP-05-2018-0016 VOL. 20 NO. 4 2018, pp. 239-248, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8794
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
PAG E 23 9
To continue reading
Request your trial