Mental Health and Social Inclusion, 25(2), 2021, pp.183-194.
Publisher:
Emerald
Purpose: Overview of coaching for recovery. The paper aims to show an overview of work that was carried out over 11 years with groups of mental health and physical staff. As the facilitator who had run this course for the duration in Nottingham, this was an excellent opportunity to be at the forefront of a brand new project. Design/methodology/approach: The introduction of the skills are taught and treating the person, administering medication and not focussing on the inner person or personal recovery. The staff review has shown that in the clinical context change is happening from the inside out. Practical implications: “Helps change culture”; “change of work practice”; “it changed staff focus – not so prescriptive”; “powerful questions let clients come to their own conclusions”; “coaching gives
(Edited publisher abstract)
Purpose: Overview of coaching for recovery. The paper aims to show an overview of work that was carried out over 11 years with groups of mental health and physical staff. As the facilitator who had run this course for the duration in Nottingham, this was an excellent opportunity to be at the forefront of a brand new project. Design/methodology/approach: The introduction of the skills are taught over two consecutive days followed by a further day a month later. The idea of coaching is to be enabled to find the answers in themselves by the use of powerful questions and using the technique of the grow model, combined with practice enables the brain to come up with its own answers. Using rapport and enabling effective communication to deliver the outcome. Findings: Evidence from staff/clients and the purpose of the paper shows that when you step back it allows the individual patients/staff to allow the brain to process to create to come up with their solutions, which then helps them to buy into the process and creates ownership. Research limitations/implications: The evidence suggests that the approach that was there prior to the course was very much a clinical approach to working with clients and treating the person, administering medication and not focussing on the inner person or personal recovery. The staff review has shown that in the clinical context change is happening from the inside out. Practical implications: “Helps change culture”; “change of work practice”; “it changed staff focus – not so prescriptive”; “powerful questions let clients come to their own conclusions”; “coaching gives the ability to find half full. Helps to offer reassurance and to find one spark of hope”. Social implications: This has shown that the approach is now person-centred/holistic. This has been the “difference that has made the difference”. When this paper looks at the issues from a different angle in this case a coaching approach, applying technique, knowledge and powerful questions the results have changed. The same clients, same staff and same problems but with the use of a different approach, there is the evidence of a different outcome, which speaks for itself. The coaching method is more facilitative, therefore it illicit’s a different response, and therefore, result. Originality/value: The results/evidence starts with the individual attending and their commitment to the process over the two-day course. Then going away for the four weeks/six for managers and a commitment again to practice. Returning to share the impact if any with the group. This, in turn, helps to inspire and gain motivation from the feedback to go back to work invigorated to keep going.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Mental Health and Social Inclusion, 19(2), 2015, pp.87-94.
Publisher:
Emerald
... with that experienced by staff working within the NHS.
Originality/value: If NHS services are genuinely to promote the recovery of those whom they serve then the leadership and culture of organisations is critical.
(Publisher abstract)
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore the leadership qualities and behaviours required to support recovery-focussed practice in mental health.
Design/methodology/approach: This paper contrasts the prevailing leadership style within the NHS with the leadership style required to support recovery-focussed practice in mental health. The underlying reasons for, and implications of, this disparity are explored.
Findings: The leadership style required to support recovery-focussed practice in mental health services is one based on collaboration, empowerment, service-user led practice, autonomy, shared decision making, distribution of power, compassion, strengths, valuing, recognising and rewarding positive behaviours and using a collective approach. This is fundamentally at odds with that experienced by staff working within the NHS.
Originality/value: If NHS services are genuinely to promote the recovery of those whom they serve then the leadership and culture of organisations is critical.
(Publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
NHS, mental health services, leadership, recovery, organisational culture;
Mental Health and Social Inclusion, 21(1), 2017, pp.47-52.
Publisher:
Emerald
Design/methodology/approach: This paper explores the use of recovery and mental health language and the application in modern day mental health services.
Findings: The language that is used to describe mental health is often based on a traditional medical model primarily focussing on diagnosis, symptoms and problems. This is a stark difference to the modern day use of recovery orientated language.
Practical implications: The paper can be used as a discussion topic in teams to explore themes around recovery language.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Design/methodology/approach: This paper explores the use of recovery and mental health language and the application in modern day mental health services.
Findings: The language that is used to describe mental health is often based on a traditional medical model primarily focussing on diagnosis, symptoms and problems. This is a stark difference to the modern day use of recovery orientated language.
Practical implications: The paper can be used as a discussion topic in teams to explore themes around recovery language.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
mental health, NHS, recovery, mental health problems, medical model, social model;
Journal of Mental Health, 27(5), 2018, pp.475-481.
Publisher:
Taylor and Francis
Place of publication:
London
Background: The concept of recovery is contested throughout the existing literature and in mental health services. Little research exists that gives voice to service user perspectives of recovery. Aim: This paper explores how service users in two recovery oriented services run by the National Health Service in North West England talked about recovery and what it meant to them. Method: 14 service users accessing these services took part in semi-structured qualitative interviews focusing on the concept of recovery. Data were analysed using an interpretive phenomenological analysis approach. Results: Service users talked about recovery as a dynamic, day to day process as well as an outcome; specifically related to being discharged from inpatient settings. A number of factors including relationships and medication were cited to have the potential to make or break recovery. Conclusions: The study highlights the continued dominance of the biomedical model in mental health services. Service users appear to have internalised staff and services’ understanding of recovery perhaps unsurprisingly given the power differential in these relationships. Implications for clinical practice are explored.
(Publisher abstract)
Background: The concept of recovery is contested throughout the existing literature and in mental health services. Little research exists that gives voice to service user perspectives of recovery. Aim: This paper explores how service users in two recovery oriented services run by the National Health Service in North West England talked about recovery and what it meant to them. Method: 14 service users accessing these services took part in semi-structured qualitative interviews focusing on the concept of recovery. Data were analysed using an interpretive phenomenological analysis approach. Results: Service users talked about recovery as a dynamic, day to day process as well as an outcome; specifically related to being discharged from inpatient settings. A number of factors including relationships and medication were cited to have the potential to make or break recovery. Conclusions: The study highlights the continued dominance of the biomedical model in mental health services. Service users appear to have internalised staff and services’ understanding of recovery perhaps unsurprisingly given the power differential in these relationships. Implications for clinical practice are explored.
(Publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
service users, recovery, mental health problems, user views, recovery approach, NHS, outcomes, intervention;
Mental Health and Social Inclusion, 21(1), 2017, pp.18-24.
Publisher:
Emerald
Purpose: This paper explores the impact of attending a Recovery College (RC) on NHS staff attitudes towards mental health and recovery, clinical and peer interactions, and personal wellbeing.
Design/methodology/approach: Qualitative and quantitative data were collected via online surveys from 94 participants. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics were used.
Findings: Themes were identified for change in attitudes towards mental health and recovery: new meanings of recovery; challenging traditional views on recovery; hope for recovery; and increased parity. The majority felt that the RC positively influenced the way they supported others. Themes relating to this were: using or sharing taught skills; increased understanding and empathy; challenging non-recovery practices; and adopting recovery This research suggests that RCs could help to reconcile Implementing Recovery through Organisational Change’s 10 Key Challenges and reduce staff burnout, which has implications for service provision.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Purpose: This paper explores the impact of attending a Recovery College (RC) on NHS staff attitudes towards mental health and recovery, clinical and peer interactions, and personal wellbeing.
Design/methodology/approach: Qualitative and quantitative data were collected via online surveys from 94 participants. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics were used.
Findings: Themes were identified for change in attitudes towards mental health and recovery: new meanings of recovery; challenging traditional views on recovery; hope for recovery; and increased parity. The majority felt that the RC positively influenced the way they supported others. Themes relating to this were: using or sharing taught skills; increased understanding and empathy; challenging non-recovery practices; and adopting recovery practices. Responses highlighted themes surrounding impacts on personal wellbeing: connectedness; safe place; self-care; and sense of competency and morale at work. Another category labelled “Design of RC” emerged with the themes co-learning, co-production and co-facilitation, and content.
Research limitations/implications: It is important to understand whether RCs are a useful resource for staff. This research suggests that RCs could help to reconcile Implementing Recovery through Organisational Change’s 10 Key Challenges and reduce staff burnout, which has implications for service provision.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
recovery, staff, NHS, attitudes, stress, empathy, mental health problems, health education;
Sets out the outcomes and corresponding indicators that will be used to hold NHS England to account for improvements in health outcomes. The indicators are grouped into five domains, which set out the high-level national outcomes and focus on improving health and reducing health inequalities. They are: preventing people from dying prematurely; enhancing quality of life for people with long-term conditions; helping people to recover from episodes of ill health or following injury; ensuring that people have a positive experience of care; and treating and caring for people in a safe environment and protecting them from avoidable harm.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Sets out the outcomes and corresponding indicators that will be used to hold NHS England to account for improvements in health outcomes. The indicators are grouped into five domains, which set out the high-level national outcomes and focus on improving health and reducing health inequalities. They are: preventing people from dying prematurely; enhancing quality of life for people with long-term conditions; helping people to recover from episodes of ill health or following injury; ensuring that people have a positive experience of care; and treating and caring for people in a safe environment and protecting them from avoidable harm.
(Edited publisher abstract)
Subject terms:
health care, NHS, outcomes, performance indicators, prevention, quality of life, long term conditions, recovery, safety, user views;