The notion of recovery has become a dominant force in mental health policy, evident in reports of the Surgeon General and President's New Freedom Commission. In both reports, recovery is stipulated as the overarching goal of care and foundation for reforms at state and local levels. Little consensus exists regarding the nature of recovery in mental illness, however, or about the most effective ways to promote it. The authors offer a conceptual framework for distinguishing between various uses of the term, provide a definition of recovery in mental health, and conclude with a discussion of the implications of this concept for meaningful reform.

The Recovery Self Assessment (RSA) was developed to gauge perceptions of the degree to which programs implement recovery-oriented practices. Nine hundred and sixty-seven directors, providers, persons in recovery, and significant others from 78 mental health and addiction programs completed the instrument. Factor analysis revealed five factors: Life Goals, Involvement, Diversity of Treatment Options, Choice, and Individually-Tailored Services. Agencies were rated highest on items related to helping people explore their interests and lowest on items regarding service user involvement in services. The RSA is a useful, self-reflective tool to identify strengths and areas for improvement as agencies strive to offer recovery-oriented care.

The notion of "recovery" has recently taken center stage in guiding mental health policy and practice. However, it is not yet clear what the term means and what is to be entailed in transforming the nation's mental health system to promote it. The authors discuss the various meanings of recovery as applied to mental illness and list the top ten concerns encountered in efforts to articulate and implement recovery-oriented care. These concerns include the following: recovery is old news, recovery-oriented care adds to the burden of already stretched providers, recovery involves cure, recovery happens to very few people, recovery represents an irresponsible fad, recovery happens only after and as a result of active treatment, recovery-oriented care is implemented only through the addition of new resources, recovery-oriented care is neither reimbursable nor evidence based, recovery-oriented care devalues the role of professional intervention, and recovery-oriented care increases providers' exposure to risk and liability. These concerns are addressed through discussion of the two over-arching challenges that they pose, namely the issues of resources and risk.

This article describes challenges and successes seen in the first four years of efforts the state of Connecticut has made to reorient its behavioral health system to promoting recovery. Beginning in 2000, the Connecticut initiative was conceptualized as a multi-year, systemic process that involved the following interrelated steps: a) developing core values and principles based on the input of people in recovery; b) establishing a conceptual and policy framework based on this vision; c) building workforce competencies and skills; d) changing programs and service structures; e) aligning fiscal and administrative policies; and, finally, f) monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting these efforts. Following descriptions of the first four steps, the authors offer a few lessons that might benefit other states engaged in similar processes of transformation.

There is an emerging trend within healthcare to introduce competency-based approaches in the training, assessment, and development of the workforce. The trend is evident in various disciplines and specialty areas within the field of behavioral health. This article is designed to inform those efforts by presenting a step-by-step process for developing a competency model. An introductory overview of competencies, competency models, and the legal implications of competency development is followed by a description of the seven steps involved in creating a competency model for a specific function, role, or position. This modeling process is drawn from advanced work on competencies in business and industry.

No abstract

Educational practices and strategies have changed very little over the years, and even emerging advances in technology have become the prisoners of traditional academic norms. Thus, while there is increasing emphasis on evaluating and aligning caregiving processes with the strongest evidence of effectiveness, there is little demonstration or role-modeling of this same expectation in either the formal or continuing educational processes of behavioral healthcare providers. This "disconnect" is a significant problem in the field. This paper addresses the urgent need to inform the education and training of the behavioral health workforce with current theories regarding the teaching-learning process and evidence about the effectiveness of various teaching strategies. The relevant theories and available bodies of evidence are described, and the implications for workforce education and training are identified.

Purpose: This article will consider the role of shared decision-making as one component of recovery-oriented care. Design/Methodology/Approach: This article is conceptual and reviews literature relevant to recovery-oriented care, person-centered recovery planning, and shared decision-making. Findings: To the degree to which shared decision-making offers tools for sharing useful information about treatment options with service users and family members or other loved ones, it can be considered a valuable addition to the recovery-oriented armamentarium. It is important to emphasize, though, that recovery-oriented practice has a broader focus on the person's overall life in the community and is not limited to formal treatments or other professionally-delivered interventions. Within the more holistic context of recovery, shared decision-making regarding such interventions is only one tool among many, which needs to be integrated within an overall person-centered recovery planning process. More emphasis is given within recovery-oriented care to activating and equipping persons for exercising self-care and for pursuing a life they have reason to value, and the nature of the relationships required to promote such processes will be identified. In describing the nature of these relationships, it will become evident that decisionmaking is only one of many processes that need to be shared between persons in recovery and those who accept responsibility for promoting and supporting that person's recovery. Originality/Value: By viewing shared decision-making within the context of recovery, this article provides a framework that can assist in the implementation of shared decision-making in routine mental health care.