This study aimed to explore how mental health professionals and users perceive recovery-oriented intersectoral care when comparing mental health hospitals and community mental healthcare. Methodological design: Five audio-recorded focus group interviews of nurses, other health professionals and users were explored using manifest and latent content analysis. Ethical issues and approval: The study was designed in accordance with the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and Danish law. Each study participant in the two intersectoral sectors gave their informed consent after verbal and written information was provided. Findings: From the health professionals’ perspective, the main theme informed by subthemes and categories was formulated: ‘Recovery-oriented intersectoral care requires more coordination and desire for collaboration’. Two subthemes were subsequently formulated: ‘The users´ perspective of the centre’ and ‘Need for a common agenda and understanding of recovery-oriented intersectoral care’. From the users´ perspective, the main theme was formulated as: ‘Recovery-oriented intersectoral care in tension between medical- and holistically oriented care’. This theme was informed by two subthemes: ‘The users´ perspective is not in focus’ and ‘A trusting relationship and a holistic approach brings coherence’. Conclusions: This study reveals that health professionals want to work in a recovery-oriented manner in intersectoral care, but several challenges appear which make achieving this aim difficult. A common understanding of recovery and how it should be carried out in intersectoral care does not exist. Care decisions are primarily made paternalistically, where the users’ and relatives’ voices are ignored. In an attempt to create coherence across sectors, intersectoral network meetings have been established with health professionals from both sectors. However, the meetings are characterised by a lack of a clear purpose regarding the meeting structure and content, and users are only minimally involved. Our results can contribute to dealing with the challenges of incorporating recovery-oriented intersectoral care as an ideology in all psychiatric and municipal contexts and is, therefore, important for health professionals and users.

Background: Recovery-oriented intersectoral care is described as an aim in mental healthcare to create a holistic framework for planning that provides integration of treatment and rehabilitation. Existing studies show that nurses and other professionals do not take responsibility for the collaborative element of intersectoral care between mental health hospitals and community mental health services. The users of mental healthcare do not experience their patient journey as a cohesive process when they are discharged from a mental health hospital to community mental health services. Aim: The integrative review aims to examine the professionals’ experience with recovery-oriented intersectoral care between mental health hospitals and community mental health services. Design: Since the aim was to review user experience, we chose an integrative review as an obvious choice for design. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Findings: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The interactive inductive and deductive analysis generated four themes, which clarify the experience of professionals with recovery-oriented intersectoral care between the mental health hospitals and community mental health services, namely ‘structurally routine care’, ‘unequal balance of power between the sectors’, ‘bureaucracy as a barrier to recovery-oriented intersectoral care’ and ‘flexible mental healthcare approaches’. Conclusion: This review achieves specific knowledge of recovery-oriented intersectoral care. The studies included show that recovery-oriented intersectoral care is not clearly defined. It is challenging to transfer intersectoral care to an organisation with different structural and linguistic barriers.

No abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to explore how healthcare professionals and users could perceive user involvement in the handover between mental health hospitals and community mental healthcare, drawing on the discourse analysis framework from Fairclough. Methods: A qualitative research design with purposive sampling was adopted. Five audio-recorded focus group interviews with nurses, users and other health professionals were explored using Fairclough’s discourse analysis framework. Ethical approval: The study was designed following the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and Danish Law. Each study participant in the two intersectoral sectors gave their informed consent after verbal and written information was provided. Results: This study has shown how users can be subject to paternalistic control despite the official aims that user involvement should be an integral part of the care and treatment offered. As evidenced in discussions by both health professionals and the users themselves, the users were involved in plans with the handover on conditions determined by the health professionals who were predominantly focused on treating diseases and enabling the users to live a life independent of professional help. Conclusions: Our results can contribute to dealing with the challenges of incorporating user involvement as an ideology in the handover between mental health hospitals and community mental health. There is a need to start forming a common language across sectors and, jointly, for professionals and users to draw up plans for intersectoral care.

Aims and objectives: In the medical field, we lack knowledge on how interprofessional collaboration across sectors is carried out. This paper explores how healthcare professionals and users perceive recovery-oriented cross-sectoral discharge network meetings between mental health hospital professionals and community mental health professionals and which discourses manifest themselves within the field of mental healthcare. Method: Ten professionals from a mental health hospital and eight community mental health professionals participated. In addition, five users with experience in mental health services in both sectors participated. Fairclough’s discourse analysis framework was used to explore their experiences. The study was designed following the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and Danish law. Each study participant in the two intersectoral sectors gave their informed consent after verbal and written information was provided. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was used as a guideline to secure accurate and complete reporting of the study). Results: The healthcare professionals in both sectors are governed by steering tools, legislation and a strong biomedical tradition to solve illness-related problems, such that users must be offered treatment and support to achieve self-care as soon as possible. This can be seen as a reflection of, and a driving force in, a change in the wider social practice that Fairclough terms the ‘marketisation of discourse’—a social development in late modernity, whereby market discourse colonises the discursive practices of public institutions. The user of psychiatric and social services experiences a structured system that does not offer the necessary time for deep conversations. Users do not consider recovery as something that is only seen in relation to the efforts of the professionals, as recovery largely takes place independently of professionals. Recovery depends on users’ internal resources and a strong network that can support them on the journey. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals perceive recovery-oriented cross-sectoral discharge network meetings to reflect paternalistic and biomedical discourses. Users want to be seen more as whole persons and did not experience sufficient involvement in the intersectoral care. Relevance to clinical practice: Healthcare professionals need to be supported to seek clarity in the understanding and operationalisation of a recovery-oriented approach, if the agenda is to be truly adopted and strengthened.