The Role of the Recovery Guide

Author(s):  
Larry Davidson ◽  
Michael Rowe ◽  
Janis Tondora ◽  
Maria J. O'Connell ◽  
Martha Staeheli Lawless

We have defined and discussed the nature of various notions of recovery, grappled with the implications of a recovery vision for mental health system transformation, and begun to draw the outlines of a transformed system. Now we can turn to the question of how such services and supports can actually be offered to people who need them. Here we propose what we call the recovery guide model. Analogous to the role currently played by case management, the recovery guide model is an organizing vehicle by which practitioners can offer a range of services and supports to people, either directly or through others. As with case management, the intensity, scope, focus, and duration of a recovery guide’s work with a person will depend on that person’s needs, preferences, life circumstances, and goals at a given point in his or her unique recovery journey. In this chapter we describe the basic aims, tenets, and tools of this approach. First, though, we offer a brief review of advances in mental health case management that preceded and led up to the concept of recovery guides, including the present recognition that, in a recovery-oriented system of care, people with serious mental illness can no longer be considered “cases” that others manage (Everett & Nelson, 1992). With the failure of a combination of Thorazine and psychotherapy to achieve the aims of deinstitutionalization (Johnson, 1992), case management became the predominant service that mental health systems offered their clients with serious mental illness (Sledge, Astrachan, Thompson, Rakfeldt, & Leaf, 1995). In addition to being inadequately funded, community-based systems of care that were developed to enable people with serious mental illness to leave state hospitals were fragmented and uncoordinated “non-systems” of care (Hoge, Davidson, Griffith, & Jacobs, 1998). As it was practically impossible for people seeking care to navigate these complex and unintegrated health and social service systems on their own, the case manager role was created to identify and coordinate the provision of services to meet their multiple needs in the community (Hoge, Davidson, Griffith, Sledge, & Howenstine, 1994; Sledge et al., 1995). Case managers’ primary responsibility was to assess people’s needs, link them to services, and monitor their service use and outcomes.

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 71-73
Author(s):  
Natasha E. Latzman ◽  
Heather Ringeisen ◽  
Valerie L. Forman–Hoffman ◽  
Breda Munoz ◽  
Shari Miller ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-187
Author(s):  
Christa Orchard ◽  
Nancy Carnide ◽  
Cameron Mustard ◽  
Peter M Smith

ObjectivesSerious mental illness is common among those who have experienced a physical workplace injury, yet little is known about mental health service use in this population. This study aims to estimate the proportion of the workplace musculoskeletal injury population experiencing a mental illness, the proportion who access mental health services through the workers’ compensation system and the factors associated with likelihood of accessing services.MethodsA longitudinal cohort study was conducted with a random sample of 615 workers’ compensation claimants followed over three survey waves between June 2014 and July 2015. The primary outcome was receiving any type of mental health service use during this period, as determined by linking survey responses to administrative compensation system records for the 18 months after initial interview.ResultsOf 181 (29.4%) participants who met the case definition for a serious mental illness at one or more of the three interviews, 75 (41.4%) accessed a mental health service during the 18-month observation period. Older age (OR=0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99) and achieving sustained return to work (OR=0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.69) were associated with reduced odds of mental health service use. Although not significant, being born in Australia was associated with an increased odds of service use (OR=2.23, 95% CI 0.97 to 5.10).ConclusionsThe proportion of injured workers with musculoskeletal conditions experiencing mental illness is high, yet the proportion receiving mental health services is low. More work is needed to explore factors associated with mental health service use in this population, including the effect of returning to work.


CNS Spectrums ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 368-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Warburton

The association between violence and mental illness is well-studied, yet remains highly controversial. Currently, there appears to be a trend of increasing violence in state hospital settings, including both civilly and forensically committed populations. In fact, physical aggression is the primary reason for admission to many state hospitals. Given that violence is now often both a reason for admission and a barrier to discharge, there is a case to be made for psychiatric violence to be re-conceptualized dimensionally, as a primary syndrome, not as the byproduct of one. Furthermore, treatment settings need to be enhanced to address the new types of violence exhibited in inpatient environments, and this modification needs to be geared toward balancing safety with treatment.


Author(s):  
Larry Davidson ◽  
Michael Rowe ◽  
Janis Tondora ◽  
Maria J. O'Connell ◽  
Martha Staeheli Lawless

We begin this second chapter where we left off in the preceding one, with the question of what is involved in the work of recovery and how practitioners can best support this work. On one hand, we understand the answer to this question to be very much a work in progress. There is much still to learn about recovery and recovery-oriented care, and we consider the field—including our own efforts in this regard—to be in the very early stages of its development. On the other hand, we have begun to learn some things about what processes of recovery entail and what the provision of recovery-oriented care looks like in practice, as well as about some of the structural conditions necessary for this kind of care to be implemented. In this chapter, we share some of these lessons by describing components and processes of being in recovery that we have integrated into a model that can then serve as the foundation for developing recovery-oriented practices. The assumption of this approach, as we mentioned in the previous chapter, is that this form of recovery is primarily the responsibility of the person with a serious mental illness. What practitioners do should thus be oriented to supporting and facilitating the person’s own efforts. We describe this perspective as a “bottom up” approach to service development, as it begins with the needs, preferences, and goals of the person in recovery— not only at the individual level of a person’s “recovery plan” but also at the collective level of the system as a whole. What services and supports should a mental health system offer? Those, we suggest, that will enable persons with serious mental illness to lead safe, dignified, and gratifying lives beyond the illness—when possible— or, when that is not possible, within the boundaries imposed by the illness. Before turning to the question of what services and supports we need to offer to promote and sustain recovery, we need to understand better what being in recovery entails. To frame the question in this way is not to ignore the other form of recovery (i.e., recovery from mental illness).


CNS Spectrums ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Richard Lamb ◽  
Linda E. Weinberger

One of the major concerns in present-day psychiatry is the criminalization of persons with serious mental illness (SMI). This trend began in the late 1960s when deinstitutionalization was implemented throughout the United States. The intent was to release patients in state hospitals and place them into the community where they and other persons with SMI would be treated. Although community treatment was effective for many, there was a large minority who did not adapt successfully and who presented challenges in treatment. Consequently, some of these individuals’ mental condition and behavior brought them to the attention of law enforcement personnel, whereupon they would be subsequently arrested and incarcerated. The failure of the mental health system to provide a sufficient range of treatment interventions, including an adequate number of psychiatric inpatient beds, has contributed greatly to persons with SMI entering the criminal justice system. A discussion of the many issues and factors related to the criminalization of persons with SMI as well as how the mental health and criminal justice systems are developing strategies and programs to address them is presented.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document