Consumer Views and Experiences of Secondary-Care Services Following REFOCUS-PULSAR Staff Recovery-Oriented Practices Training.

BACKGROUND: The use of recovery-oriented practice (ROP) can be challenging to implement in mental health services. This qualitative sub-study of the Principles Unite Local Services Assisting Recovery (PULSAR) project explored how consumers perceive their recovery following community mental health staff undertaking specific ROP training. METHODS: Using a qualitative participatory methodology, 21 consumers (aged 18-63 years) participated in one-on-one interviews. A thematic analysis was applied. RESULTS: Four main themes were extracted: (1) connection, (2) supportive relationships, (3) a better life, and (4) barriers. Connections to community and professional staff were important to support consumers in their recovery journey. Many consumers were seeking and striving towards a better life that was personal and individual to each of them, and how they made meaning around the idea of a better life. Barriers to recovery primarily focused on a lack of choice. A minor theme of 'uncertainty' suggested that consumers struggled to identify what their recovered future might entail. CONCLUSION: Despite staff undertaking the ROP training, all participants struggled to identify language and aspects of recovery in their interaction with the service, suggesting a need for staff to promote open, collaborative conversations around recovery. A specifically targeted recovery resource might facilitate such conversation.

REFOCUS-PULSAR Recovery-Oriented Practice Training in Adult Primary Mental Health Care: Exploratory Findings Including From a Pretest-Posttest Evaluation.

Objectives: Australian general practitioners (GPs) are pivotal in mental health care. The REFOCUS-PULSAR (Principles Unite Local Services Assisting Recovery) primary care study aimed to improve personal recovery outcomes in adults with mental health problems consulting GPs. Design: Modified from an intended stepped-wedge cluster study, an exploratory (pre- and post-intervention) design employed cross-sectional surveys of patients consulting GPs. Setting: Eighteen primary care sites (clusters) in Victoria, Australia in 2013-2017. Participants: From 30 GPs recruited, 23 participated (76%), with 235 patient surveys returned from adults aged <75 years receiving mental health care. Intervention: A co-delivered face-to-face training intervention for GPs in recovery-oriented practice (ROP), with personal recovery a key focus, used multimedia, mnemonics, and targeted interview schedules to encourage ROP-with availability of support sessions for 1 year. Outcome Measures: Primary: the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery full-scale score (outcome). Secondary: INSPIRE (experience), Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) and Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) (outcomes). Other: General-practice-Users Perceived-need Inventory (experience). Results: Small positive significant effects indicated primary-outcome post-intervention improvements [t-test (233) = -2.23, p = 0.01], also improvement in two secondary outcomes (WEMWBS t(233) = -2.12, p = 0.02 and K10 t(233) = 2.44, p = 0.01). More patients post-intervention reported "no need" for further help from their GP; but in those reporting needs, there was greater unmet need for counseling. Conclusions: ROP implementation, internationally influential in specialist mental health care, here is explored in primary care where it has had less attention. These exploratory findings suggest better patient outcomes followed introducing GPs to ROP in routine practice conditions. Higher unmet need for counseling post-intervention reported by patients might be a sign of limited supply despite ROP facilitating better identification of needs. Challenges in project implementation means that these findings carry risks of bias and flag the importance establishing research infrastructure in primary care. Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov/, The Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ACTRN12614001312639.

The experience of the use of Community Treatment Orders following recovery-oriented practice training.

States across Australia are changing and adapting policy and laws to deliver mental health services using principles of personal recovery. Yet, the use of Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) remains high in apparent contradiction with this change. As part of the PULSAR trial investigating the outcomes of recovery oriented practice (ROP) training in primary and secondary care services within Metropolitan Melbourne, Victoria, a qualitative study was undertaken to explore the intersection between implementing ROP and working with consumers on CTOs. In-depth interviews were undertaken with consumers with experience being on CTOs and staff of secondary care services, and inductively analysed to identify themes. For consumers, being on a CTO meant lacking choice and control, an emphasis on medication, fear of the threat of hospitalisation, an absence of recovery oriented practice, and staying supported. For staff, recovery oriented practice in the presence of CTOs is challenging, with CTOs being seen to be a primary way to manage risk. Staff supported recovery as a practice, but identified a lack of organisational 'buy in' by services. The findings of this small scale study, embedded in a much larger study about ROP, support other literature that identifies implementing ROP in services that use CTOs as potentially problematic; and that ROP can enhance both consumers and staff experiences of services but, without systemic change, there may not be a significant shift in the use of CTOs, while CTOs also inhibit uptake of ROP.

The PULSAR primary care protocol: a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial to test a training intervention for general practitioners in recovery-oriented practice to optimize personal recovery in adult patients.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) in Australia play a central role in the delivery of mental health care. This article describes the PULSAR (Principles Unite Local Services Assisting Recovery) Primary Care protocol, a novel mixed methods evaluation of a training intervention for GPs in recovery-oriented practice. The aim of the intervention is to optimize personal recovery in patients consulting study GPs for mental health issues. METHODS: The intervention mixed methods design involves a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial testing the outcomes of training in recovery-oriented practice, together with an embedded qualitative study to identify the contextual enablers and challenges to implementing recovery-oriented practice. The project is conducted in Victoria, Australia between 2013 and 2017. Eighteen general practices and community health centers are randomly allocated to one of two steps (nine months apart) to start an intervention comprising GP training in the delivery of recovery-oriented practice. Data collection consists of cross-sectional surveys collected from patients of participating GPs at baseline, and again at the end of Steps 1 and 2. The primary outcome is improvement in personal recovery using responses to the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery. Secondary outcomes are improvements in patient-rated measures of personal recovery and wellbeing, and of the recovery-oriented practice they have received, using the INSPIRE questionnaire, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, and the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. Participant data will be analyzed in the group that the cluster was assigned to at each study time point. Another per-protocol dataset will contain all data time-stamped according to the date of intervention received at each cluster site. Qualitative interviews with GPs and patients at three and nine months post-training will investigate experiences and challenges related to implementing recovery-oriented practice in primary care. DISCUSSION: Recovery-oriented practice is gaining increasing prominence in mental health service delivery and the outcomes of such an approach within the primary care sector for the first time will be evaluated in this project. If findings are positive, the intervention has the potential to extend recovery-oriented practice to GPs throughout the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ( ACTRN12614001312639 ). Registered: 8 August 2014.

Australian and Canadian mental health Acts compared.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this paper is to compare the mental health Acts of the eight Australian jurisdictions and the 13 Canadian jurisdictions on three major issues: involuntary admission criteria, treatment authorization/consent and compulsory treatment in the community, in the light of international trends towards patients' rights. METHOD: The legislation was examined against the background of rights instruments such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. RESULTS: It was found that some Canadian involuntary admission criteria require the likelihood of bodily harm whereas all Australian Acts have broad harm and deterioration criteria. Unlike all Australian jurisdictions, some Canadian jurisdictions allow for the refusal of treatment that may be required for discharge. In addition, Canadian community treatment orders are much more restrictive than in Australia because they require a person to have considerable previous hospitalization despite meeting the committal criteria. Australian jurisdictions can use community treatment orders as a least restrictive alternative to inpatient status without prior hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The paper concludes that there are significant philosophical differences regarding the purpose of involuntary admission between Australian and some Canadian jurisdictions where treatment refusal is possible. Australian mental health Acts have a relatively stronger 'treatment' focus than some Canadian Acts. The apparently stronger 'rights' focus of some Canadian laws (such as the permission of treatment refusal) can paradoxically result in a denial of liberty rights. The way in which the relevant legislation is shaped in both countries will increasingly be affected by international trends towards the rights of individuals with disabilities.