The recovery-orientation of three mental health units
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-11-2013-0036 |
| Date | 02 September 2014 |
| Published date | 02 September 2014 |
| Pages | 163-175 |
| Author | Hollie Bass,Anna Tickle,Nicholas Lewis |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Mental health |
The recovery-orientation of three mental
health units
Hollie Bass, Anna Tickle and Nicholas Lewis
Dr Hollie Bass is a Clinical
Psychologist, based at Mental
Health Service, Department
of Health, Douglas,
Isle of Man, UK.
Dr Anna Tickle is a Clinical
Psychologist, based at Division
of Psychiatry and Applied
Psychology, University of
Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Nicholas Lewis is a Psychology
Student, based at Institute of
Psychiatry, Department of
Psychosis Studies, King’s
College London, London, UK.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to measure service user and staff views of the recovery orientation
of three mental health rehabilitation units; two “open”and one “locked”. It identified elements of recovery
that were important to service users. It measured the units’ performance on domains of recovery, attending
to differences between staff members’ and service users’ perceptions and between the locked and
open units.
Design/methodology/approach – A cross-sectional design was used. Staff and service users completed
the “Developing Recovery Enhancing Environment Measure (DREEM)”.
Findings – Findings revealed some differences between staff and service user views. Service users in the
locked unit reported the organisational climate to be more recovery oriented on some domains than those in
the open units. Service users’ responses highlighted potential areas for service improvement.
Research limitations/implications – The sample was small but reflected the applied setting. Some
service users were not invited to participate because of significant communication or cognitive difficulties
and it is recognised that they may have had alternative views that remain unrepresented.
Practical implications – The DREEM provided valuable information about current practice and potential
for service development. Both locked and open units can provide recovery-oriented environments. Services
should be aware of discrepant views between staff and service users.
Originality/value – To the knowledge, this is the first study to use the DREEM to evaluate the recovery
orientation of a locked recovery unit and to compare locked and unlocked units.
Keywords Mental health, Residential, Rehabilitation, Recovery, Service evaluation, DREEM
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The concept of recovery has become a guiding philosophy for mental health services
(Department of Health, 2011a), influencing practice, policy and research (Kelly and Gamble,
2005). Recovery is depicted as “a way of living a satisfying, hopeful, and contributing life even
with the limitations caused by illness” (Anthony, 1993, p. 527). This optimistic philosophy
encourages a shift from traditional, medical meanings of recovery, that focus on outcome,
towards a person-centred process approach that views service users as “experts by
experience” (Andresen et al., 2011).
Initially the recovery movement focused upon the individual and their recovery (Stickley and
Wright, 2011a). This could be seen as potentially shifting responsibility to the individual service
user and away from society, service systems and structural factors (Ramon et al., 2007). There
has since been a shift towards considering the responsibilities of service providers in relation to
recovery (Stickley and Wright, 2011a). The notion quickly became established within mental
health services and is found within the discourse of clinicians and service managers as well as
those with mental health problems (Pilgrim, 2008). It is acknowledged that while the language of
recovery has been widely adopted, the concept has multifaceted definitions worthy of critical
appraisal (Ramon et al., 2007).
The authors would like to thank the
service users and staff who gave
their time and views.
DOI 10.1108/MHRJ-11-2013-0036 VOL. 19 NO. 3 2014, pp. 163-175, CEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1361-9322
j
MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW JOURNAL
j
PAGE 163
To continue reading
Request your trial