Organisational contexts and practice developments in mental health peer provision in Western Australia

Abstract

PurposeOver the past decade, the push for recovery-oriented services has birthed a growth in the recruitment of peer providers in mental health services: Persons who live with and manage their mental health challenges and are employed to support persons currently using mental health services. The aim of this paper is to compare the responses of government and non-government organisations to the implementation of peer provision.Design/methodology/approachEmploying a qualitative study design, 15 people who supervised peer providers or who were strategically involved in peer provision were recruited using snowball sampling. Participants completed an in-depth interview that explored how peer provision services operated at their organisation and factors that shaped the way peer provision operates. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using Moore's Strategic Triangle. Synthesised member checking and researcher triangulation ensued to establish trustworthiness.FindingsThe way in which peer provision operated sat along a continuum ranging from adoption (where practices are shaped by the recovery ethos) to co-option (where recovery work may be undertaken, but not shaped by the recovery ethos). Political and legal mandates that affected the operational capacities of each organisation shaped the way peer provision services operated.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings of the study highlight the need to reconsider where peer provision services fit in the mental health system. Research investigating the value of peer provision services may attract the support of funders, service users and policy makers alike.Originality/valueIn employing Moore's strategic triangle to evaluate the alignment of policy (the authorising environment) with the operational capacity and practice of peer provision services (the task environment), this study found that organisational response to peer provision is largely influenced by political and legal mandates externally. The successful implementation of peer provision is mediated by effective supervision of peer providers.

The essential necessity to invest in the cultivation of peer recovery specialists as organizational leaders

“…A second challenge identified by Zeng et al (2020) was the unclear definition of a peer provider's role. One of the key elements of peer providers is that they share their lived experiences with others so that their experiences, strength and hope may help others going through something similar.…”

“…Stigmatizing attitudes toward peer providers constitutes a third challenge identified by Zeng et al (2020). Although faced with stigma by their nonpeer colleagues, young adult peer providers seem to navigate more effectively when they have more psychological capital (i.e.…”

“…Another area identified by Zeng et al (2020) that is challenging for peer providers in the workplace concerns collaboration and integration of interdisciplinary teams. Through a capital theory lens, Delman and Klodnick (2017) identified eight factors that seemed to signify on-the-job success: persistence, job confidence, resilience, job training, professional communication with colleagues, regular and individualized supervision, support from colleagues and family support.…”

“…Because they are part of the mental health community, they are also discouraged from their community. Zeng et al (2020) posited a list of challenges experienced by peer mental health providers (known by various names, such as peer recovery specialists, recovery coaches, peer support workers, peer counselors, etc. ), including failing to establish professional credibility of the peer provider, not operationally defining the roles of peer providers, the continuing stigmatizing attitudes of professional mental health colleagues, the collaboration and integration of interdisciplinary teams lack support for peer providers.…”

“…Ahmed et al (2015) contributed a list of other challenges experienced by peer mental health providers such as challenging work conditions, inadequate compensation, insufficient training, the taxing emotional costs of supporting peers and the complex nature of the triple identity of being a provider, peer and consumer. Zeng et al (2020) listed failing to establish the peer provider's professional credibility as one of the significant challenges experienced by this mental health professional. Delman and Klodnick (2017) advised that mutual sharing with the clients, a basic tenet in peer support work, is viewed as unprofessional and contradictory by other clinical staff.…”