Techniques appropriate for educating schizophrenic patients were discussed, and the value of involving patients in education emphasised. A series of patient education sessions is needed to consolidate learning, rather than a single informing process. The strong association between impaired learning and more severe negative schizophrenic syndrome emphasises the need for responsible prescribing of antipsychotic treatment in schizophrenia.

BackgroundMental health policy is for staff to transform their practice towards a recovery orientation. Staff understanding of recovery-orientated practice will influence the implementation of this policy. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and narrative synthesis of empirical studies identifying clinician and manager conceptualisations of recovery-orientated practice.MethodsA systematic review of empirical primary research was conducted. Data sources were online databases (n = 8), journal table of contents (n = 5), internet, expert consultation (n = 13), reference lists of included studies and references to included studies. Narrative synthesis was used to integrate the findings.ResultsA total of 10,125 studies were screened, 245 full papers were retrieved, and 22 were included (participants, n = 1163). The following three conceptualisations of recovery-orientated practice were identified: clinical recovery, personal recovery and service-defined recovery. Service-defined recovery is a new conceptualisation which translates recovery into practice according to the goals and financial needs of the organisation.ConclusionsOrganisational priorities influence staff understanding of recovery support. This influence is leading to the emergence of an additional meaning of recovery. The impact of service-led approaches to operationalising recovery-orientated practice has not been evaluated.Trial RegistrationThe protocol for the review was pre-registered (PROSPERO 2013: CRD42013005942).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0275-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

(2015) Supporting recovery in patients with psychosis using adult mental health teams (REFOCUS): a multi-site cluster randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2 (6). pp. 503-514. ISSN 2215-0374 Access from the University of Nottingham repository: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/34258/1/AFD%20Lancet%20Psychiatry%20REFOCUS %20Cost-effectiveness.pdf Copyright and reuse:The Nottingham ePrints service makes this work by researchers of the University of Nottingham available open access under the following conditions. This article is made available under the University of Nottingham End User licence and may be reused according to the conditions of the licence. For more details see: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/end_user_agreement.pdf A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. Abstract BackgroundMental health policy in many countries is oriented around recovery. The evidence base for service-level pro-recovery interventions is lacking. MethodsTwo-site cluster randomised controlled trial in England (ISRCTN02507940). REFOCUS is a one-year team-level intervention targeting staff behaviour (increasing focus on patient values, preferences, strengths, goal-striving) and staff-patient relationships (coaching, partnership). 27 community-based adult mental health teams were randomly allocated to treatment-as-usual (n=13) or treatment-as-usual plus REFOCUS (n=14).Baseline (n=403) and one-year follow-up (n=297) outcomes were assessed for randomly selected patients with psychosis, representing 88% of target recruitment. Primary outcome was recovery, assessed using Questionnaire about Processes of Recovery (QPR). FindingsIntention-to-treat analysis using multiple imputation found no difference in QPR Total (control 40·0 (s.d.10·2), intervention 40·6 (s.d.10·1), adjusted difference 0·68, 95%CI: -1·7 to 3·1, p=·58), or sub-scales. Secondary outcomes which improved in the intervention group were functioning (adjusted difference 6·96, 95%CI 2·8 to 9·2, p<·001) and staff-rated unmet need (adjusted difference 0·80, 95%CI 0·2 to 1·4, p=·01). This pattern remained after covariate adjustment and completer analysis (n=275). Higherparticipating teams had higher staff-rated pro-recovery behaviour change (adjusted difference -0·4, 95%CI -0·7 to -0·2, p=·001) and patients had higher QPR Interpersonal scores (adjusted difference -1·6, 95%CI -2·7 to -0·5, p=·005) at follow-up. Interventiongroup patients incurred £1,062 (95%CI -£1,103 to £3,017) lower adjusted costs. InterpretationSupporting recovery may, from the staff perspective, improve functioning and reduce needs. Overcoming implementation barriers may increase staff pro-recovery behaviours and interpersonal aspects of patient-rated recovery.

No abstract

The levels of agreement between patient and staff ratings were significantly higher in the present study than previously reported. Possible reasons for the higher concordance found in this study were the use of keyworkers who knew patients well. Further, keyworkers may have been influenced in their assessment of need by awareness of patients' perceived need. Joint needs assessment may strengthen the therapeutic alliance, improve our understanding of priority needs and aid in service development. Work is needed to ensure that care is targeted explicitly towards unmet need.

Background: Mental health supported accommodation services are implemented across England, usually organised into a ‘step-down’ care pathway that requires the individual to repeatedly move as they gain skills and confidence for more independent living. There have been no trials comparing the effectiveness of different types of supported accommodation, but two widely used models (supported housing and floating outreach) have been found to provide similar support. We aimed to assess the feasibility of conducting a large-scale trial comparing these two models. Methods: Individually randomised, parallel group feasibility trial in three regions of England (North London, East London, and Cheltenham and Gloucestershire). We aimed to recruit 60 participants in 15 months, referred to supported accommodation, randomly allocated on an equal basis to receive either a local supported housing or floating outreach service. We assessed referrals to the trial, participants recruited, attrition, time from recruitment to moving into either type of supported accommodation, and feasibility of masking. We conducted a process evaluation to examine our results further. Results: We screened 1,432 potential participants, of whom 17 consented to participate, with 8 agreeing to randomisation (of whom 1 was lost to attrition) and 9 participating in naturalistic follow-up. Our process evaluation indicated that the main obstacle to recruitment was staff and service user preferences for certain types of supported accommodation or for specific services. Staff also felt that randomisation compromised their professional judgement. Conclusions: Our results do not support investment in a large-scale trial in England at this time. Trial registration: UK CRN Portfolio database, Trial ID: ISRCTN19689576. Trial funding: National Institute of Health Research (RP-PG-0707-10093).

Psychiatric patients are sometimes given fact sheets about their treatment but the benefits of these are uncertain. We tested three strategies in three cohorts of psychiatric inpatients--fact sheets alone, fact sheets and subsequent discussion, and control. Knowledge of medication was assessed by questionnaire. For various reasons, only 33 of the 77 patients were included in the study or analysis. Of the patients who had been given fact sheets, 87% independently read them and reported finding them helpful whilst all asked for more information. Receiving a fact sheet alone had no significant effect, whereas having discussed it with a health care professional was associated with a significant increase in knowledge about medication. Patients receiving fact sheets selectively learned more about side-effects than about drug action or precautions. This strategy for patient education could be used by ward nurses and deserves further evaluation.

Educational background and the intellectual ability required to learn complex concepts, such as models of mental illness, appear to be more important than previously considered. Research is limited by the lack of a generally accepted definition of insight.