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.
Mental health among young adults in prison: The importance of childhood-onset conduct disorder