CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychiatric care and mental health servicesNursing education and management

Borderline personality disorder: clinicians’ accounts of good practice

BOWEN, M.·2013·Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2012.01943.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Accessible summary • There is little research into experiences of good practice by clinicians working with people with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorders. • Clinicians report compassionate and ‘realistic’ attitude towards the service users. • Clinic approach is consistent with a recovery-focused model. Abstract People with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder are relatively high users of inpatient and community services. There is concern, however, that mental health nurses feel negative about working with this group of people, are often socially distancing and feel under-skilled. The purpose of this research was to explore the experiences of good practice among mental health professionals working in a service that provided specialist treatment for this group of service users. The research was undertaken through semi-structured interviews and identified four key themes: shared decision making, social roles, peer support and open communication. These themes are discussed in the context of research in this field, the need for recovery-focused services, and through drawing on the Winnicotian notions of disillusionment and mirroring as key developmental processes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2012.01943.x

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
BOWEN, M.
Affiliations
University of Chester (GB)
Corresponding author
BOWEN, M.
ORCID
BOWEN, M.
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-06-21
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
491-498
ISSN
  • 1351-0126 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2850
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2850.2012.01943.x
OpenAlex
W2130357912
Cited by
21
References
33
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ChesterRep (University of Chester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
Keywords
borderline personality disorder, psychiatric nurses, clinician experience, best practices, recovery-oriented care, shared decision-making, peer support, open communication, social roles, disillusionment, mirroring, Winnicottian theory, compassionate care
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Borderline Personality Disorder, Communication, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Patient Participation, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychiatric Nursing, Social Support, Practice Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review