CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 94Psychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health and Patient InvolvementHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints

Recovery-focused care planning and coordination in England and Wales: a cross-national mixed methods comparative case study

Open access
Simpson, Alan, Hannigan, Ben, Coffey, Michael, Barlow, Sally, Cohen, Rachel, Jones, Aled, Všetečková, Jitka, Faulkner, Alison +2 more·2016·BMC Psychiatry
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-0858-xPMC PMC4868048
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the UK, concerns about safety and fragmented community mental health care led to the development of the care programme approach in England and care and treatment planning in Wales. These systems require service users to have a care coordinator, written care plan and regular reviews of their care. Processes are required to be collaborative, recovery-focused and personalised but have rarely been researched. We aimed to obtain the views and experiences of stakeholders involved in community mental health care and identify factors that facilitate or act as barriers to personalised, collaborative, recovery-focused care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-national comparative study employing a concurrent transformative mixed-methods approach with embedded case studies across six service provider sites in England and Wales. The study included a survey of views on recovery, empowerment and therapeutic relationships in service users (n = 448) and recovery in care coordinators (n = 201); embedded case studies involving interviews with service providers, service users and carers (n = 117) and a review of care plans (n = 33). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed within and across sites using inferential statistics, correlations and framework method. RESULTS: Significant differences were found across sites for scores on therapeutic relationships. Variation within sites and participant groups was reported in experiences of care planning and understandings of recovery and personalisation. Care plans were described as administratively burdensome and were rarely consulted. Carers reported varying levels of involvement. Risk assessments were central to clinical concerns but were rarely discussed with service users. Service users valued therapeutic relationships with care coordinators and others, and saw these as central to recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative elements of care coordination reduce opportunities for recovery-focused and personalised work. There were few common understandings of recovery which may limit shared goals. Conversations on risk appeared to be neglected and assessments kept from service users. A reluctance to engage in dialogue about risk management may work against opportunities for positive risk-taking as part of recovery-focused work. Research to investigate innovative approaches to maximise staff contact time with service users and carers, shared decision-making in risk assessments, and training designed to enable personalised, recovery-focused care coordination is indicated.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12888-016-0858-x

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • These findings align with other studies involving patients with eating disorders, in which GSH intervention produced group differences in reduced anxiety symptoms, but not in disorder-specific symptoms.

    “These findings align with other studies involving patients with eating disorders, in which GSH intervention produced group differences in reduced anxiety symptoms, but not in disorder-specific symptoms.39,41”

    From Recovery-focused self-help intervention using vodcasts for patients with personality disorder: Feasibility randomised controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Methods (Meso-level data) describe measures of recovery-oriented care and therapeutic relationships, while the Results (Survey results) report scores and correlations for those measures. Searches for guided self-help (GSH), eating disorders, anxiety reduction, and disorder-specific symptoms found no passage addressing the claimed intervention finding. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [13]Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection No voice, no choice: A joint review of adult community mental health services in England 2007 London Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Simpson, A., Hannigan, B., Coffey, M., Barlow, S., Cohen, R., Jones, A., Všetečková, J., Faulkner, A., Thornton, A., & Cartwright, M.
Affiliations
  • City, University of London (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Swansea University (GB)
  • The Open University (GB)
Corresponding author
Simpson, Alan
ORCID
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-05-16
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
147-147
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12888-016-0858-x
PMC
PMC4868048
OpenAlex
W2400270814
Cited by
94
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 2
FWCI
18.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (acceptedVersion)
  • HRB National Drugs Library (Health Research Board) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (HS&DR 11/2004/12)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Keywords
recovery-oriented care, care coordination, care planning, community mental health services, care coordinators, individualized care, therapeutic relationship, empowerment, risk assessment, caregiver involvement, administrative burden, shared decision-making, England and Wales comparison
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Community Mental Health Services, England, Humans, Patient Care Planning, Wales, Case-Control Studies, Health Care Surveys

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