How Consumers/Survivors Are Evaluating the Quality of Psychiatric Care

Abstract

In the past decade, mental health consumers have increasingly become involved in evaluating the quality of psychiatric care and applying sophisticated data strategies to affect system reform. Through multistakeholder partnerships, they have identified outcome indicators, collaborated in the development of a mental health report card, and designed and conducted consumer self report surveys on satisfaction and needs and preferences for housing and supports. The formation of multistakeholder assessment teams; the definition of the consumer perspective through focus groups and concept-mapping pilots; and research on coercion, personhood, recovery, and empowerment are key activities of consumers/survivors in the field of evaluation.

Outcomes for women with co-occurring disorders and trauma: Program-level effects

“…Within this project, these women asked to be referred to as Consumer/Survivor/Recovering persons, a term developed within the first 2 years of the study to reflect their histories as mental health service consumers, survivors of physical and sexual abuse, and recovering users of drugs and alcohol. This requirement is consistent with the position of various authors in the mental health field, who have noted that including people with direct experience with the services and the unique understanding of these systems that they bring can improve the quality of services (Campbell, 1997;Deegan, 1995;Fisher, 1994aFisher, , 1994bMcCabe & Unzicker, 1995;NASMHPD, 1998).…”

Women, Co-occurring Disorders, and Violence Study: Evaluation design and study population

“…While CSR involvement is not new in the fields of substance abuse and mental health, achieving genuine CSR integration is time-consuming and challenging (Prescott, 2001a). The quality of services is often improved as a result of the unique understanding and subsequent contribution of people with direct experience in mental health and substance abuse systems (Campbell, 1993(Campbell, , 1997Deegan, 1995;Fisher, 1994;McCabe & Unzicker, 1995;NASMHPD, 1989).…”

Acceptability of compulsory powers in the community: the ethical considerations of mental health service users on Supervised Discharge and Guardianship

“…6 The proposed CTO would have similar powers, but additionally contain the new and controversial power to specify medical treatment and enforce medication adherence for service users in the community. 7 Existing descriptions of service users' views of care (reviewed elsewhere 8 ) describe service users' wishes for individual future care and/or treatment in the context of crisis cards, 9 advance directives, [10][11][12][13] priorities for mental health services, 14 15 evaluations of quality, 16 and perceptions of an ''ideal'' service. 17 However, there is no discussion of service users' views about the principles of compulsory care in the community nor their views of the use of these powers for people other than themselves.…”