Current initiatives around mental health focus on three key areas of support, anti-stigma and therapy. A fourth area 'recovery' is also an important part of the debate.
'Recovery' is controversial and misunderstood. Recovery can be associated with 'cure' and the concept of a 'cure' in mental ill-health is not always helpful. That is not to say that people with mental health conditions never talk of being cured or completely recovered. Some do.
The predominant experience of living with a long-term mental health condition is one of managing symptoms and maintaining a life.
So recovery becomes a form of health management that allows for hopes, dreams and aspirations to develop and continue according to an individual's wishes and choices.
Thinking around recovery is intimately linked with ideas and concepts of social inclusion. These ideas go back a long way. They have their roots in the civil rights movement. Activist Rosa Parkes' refusal to vacate a bus seat reserved for whites in Alabama Mississippi in 1955 marks a crucial moment in the history of social inclusion. In some ways it changed everything.
As recently as the early 2000s social inclusion formed a major part of UK government thinking. It was developed under the (then) office of the deputy prime minister and had a strong impact on policy and funding streams.
Along with recovery and social inclusion is a third term - 'mainstream'.
Mainstream is a key part of social inclusion and recovery because it is in the mainstream world that someone with a mental health condition is required to live, just as we all are.
With the knowledge that 'recovery takes place regardless of symptoms or problems' (New Horizons 2008), individuals with mental health diagnoses have the right to access mainstream areas without prejudice. Someone with a mental health condition has dreams, hopes, aspirations and goals and it is only in the mainstream world where these have a chance of realisation.
In line with this thinking and policy-making, a whole body of materials was created in the early 2000s to help organisations make mainstream social inclusion possible. By the mid-2000s third sector organisation working in mental health were often more likely to receive commissions and funding the more they could show a commitment to promoting mainstream.
The old way of thinking that limited people with long-term conditions to handouts, clinical settings, day centres and drop-ins was fast being re-shaped and re-made.
Mainstream recovery approaches are fast disappearing under the tide of cuts to funding and changes in commissioning. It is an initiative in danger of being consigned to the category of yet another transitory trend in mental health and social inclusion. This is despite the fact that referral to mainstream is highly cost-effective and has a deep impact on the lives of individuals.
Showing posts with label recovery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recovery. Show all posts
Sunday, 4 November 2012
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Thursday, 8 September 2011
Friday, 19 August 2011
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Building a meaningful life
“Recovery is about building a meaningful and satisfying life, as defined by the person themselves, whether or not there are ongoing or recurring symptoms or problems.” Shepherd, Boardman and Slade 2008.
There are implications for any mental health recovery programme if it is to take place regardless of 'ongoing symptoms or problems'. Firstly, it requires that the recovery programme is not determined solely by an individual's clinical diagnosis. Instead, it must be determined by a person identifying what he or she needs to build a life that is 'meaningful and satisfying'.
An appropriate service and environment in which this identification can take place needs to be in place to help signpost the journey towards invidual goals and aspirations. Fortunately, there are strategies built in to the care pathway that can enable individuals to identify personal goals and locate the sites in mainstream where hopes and goals can be realised. Whether these services are commissioned locally and regionally in specific areas is another matter.
It is important that aspirational settings are embedded in mainstream because individual goals are not fulfilled in clinical environments, although they may be identified therein. It is in mainstream where each and every one of us makes the path to achieving our goals. Mainstream is where we live, work, learn, create, exercise, develop and grow. Mainstream venues are the sites where these developments can take place. Sites that include the arts, sports, education, retailing, volunteering, befriending, family, friends, faith and employment. It is broadly one or more of these areas that an individual will identify as useful to his or her developmental choices.
When this person-centred practice is backed up by a team that can help direct an individual to the appropriate mainstream setting, then a recovery programme can start in earnest. It may well be that other settings have helped or continue to help in achieving this - settings such as day services and what used to be referred to as 'sheltered' activities or community projects. The clinical teams also - assertive outreach, O.T.'s and key workers all contribute to client independence.
It is important that the initial conversation about an individual's mainstream goals and aspirations takes place in a mainstream setting. This may well be an individual's first re-introduction to the mainstream world after what could have been years of semi-institutional or supported environments. It is extremely unlikely that the practical hope of achieving mainstream is communicated in a hospital consulting room or even in an individual's own home. Those areas are associated with support, care and treatment. Mainstream recovery has to go beyond these boundaries.
So what sort of team can best support an individual when it's not support he or she is requesting but access to goals and self-development? I would argue that this needs to be provided by a bridge-building team, each member equipped to identify the mainstream venues appropriate to the goals the client has identified.
Regular readers of this blog will know that I am an arts and faith bridge builder based in south London.
Readers will also know that I work directly with people referred from secondary care, that is people with what are called 'severe and enduring' mental health diagnoses. I work with colleagues who are all trained in identifying the mainstream areas appropriate to their bridge building roles. The employment advisor must know about mainstream employment, the sports bridge builder about sports venues, the arts bridge builder must know about the arts locally and regionally.
Mainstream is often achieved indirectly and obliquely. For example, a client who has identified music as a mainstream goal may not go on to achieve in that field or may change their mind about music as a choice in their recovery. This can be disappointing for me as arts bridge builder, but it is often the case that these individuals benefit immensely from other aspects of mainstream that the team is able to offer. I frequently find that some clients who have not engaged through the arts are nonetheless following mainstream goals via the befriending service or through volunteering and sports activities.
Conversely, it can be the case that a client who has been signposted to a music outlet in mainstream, goes on to achieve goals that go far beyond the initial contact with a music studio or rehearsal room that he or she has requested. Such clients can and do develop employment and self-employment pathways or go on to further and higher education opportunities. These goals have been achieved through the initial contact with mainstream and couldn't have been realised any other way. Mainstream itself will often generate these opportunities for the client independently of the bridge building service.
Because bridge building has the strength to enable an 'oblique' approach, there can be limitless opportunities for motivated clients choosing their recovery pathway. Even a relapse can only hold up rather than destroy the process. There are confidence and skill levels that clients develop in mainstream that will stand them in good stead.
There are implications for any mental health recovery programme if it is to take place regardless of 'ongoing symptoms or problems'. Firstly, it requires that the recovery programme is not determined solely by an individual's clinical diagnosis. Instead, it must be determined by a person identifying what he or she needs to build a life that is 'meaningful and satisfying'.
An appropriate service and environment in which this identification can take place needs to be in place to help signpost the journey towards invidual goals and aspirations. Fortunately, there are strategies built in to the care pathway that can enable individuals to identify personal goals and locate the sites in mainstream where hopes and goals can be realised. Whether these services are commissioned locally and regionally in specific areas is another matter.
It is important that aspirational settings are embedded in mainstream because individual goals are not fulfilled in clinical environments, although they may be identified therein. It is in mainstream where each and every one of us makes the path to achieving our goals. Mainstream is where we live, work, learn, create, exercise, develop and grow. Mainstream venues are the sites where these developments can take place. Sites that include the arts, sports, education, retailing, volunteering, befriending, family, friends, faith and employment. It is broadly one or more of these areas that an individual will identify as useful to his or her developmental choices.
When this person-centred practice is backed up by a team that can help direct an individual to the appropriate mainstream setting, then a recovery programme can start in earnest. It may well be that other settings have helped or continue to help in achieving this - settings such as day services and what used to be referred to as 'sheltered' activities or community projects. The clinical teams also - assertive outreach, O.T.'s and key workers all contribute to client independence.
It is important that the initial conversation about an individual's mainstream goals and aspirations takes place in a mainstream setting. This may well be an individual's first re-introduction to the mainstream world after what could have been years of semi-institutional or supported environments. It is extremely unlikely that the practical hope of achieving mainstream is communicated in a hospital consulting room or even in an individual's own home. Those areas are associated with support, care and treatment. Mainstream recovery has to go beyond these boundaries.
So what sort of team can best support an individual when it's not support he or she is requesting but access to goals and self-development? I would argue that this needs to be provided by a bridge-building team, each member equipped to identify the mainstream venues appropriate to the goals the client has identified.
Regular readers of this blog will know that I am an arts and faith bridge builder based in south London.
Readers will also know that I work directly with people referred from secondary care, that is people with what are called 'severe and enduring' mental health diagnoses. I work with colleagues who are all trained in identifying the mainstream areas appropriate to their bridge building roles. The employment advisor must know about mainstream employment, the sports bridge builder about sports venues, the arts bridge builder must know about the arts locally and regionally.
Mainstream is often achieved indirectly and obliquely. For example, a client who has identified music as a mainstream goal may not go on to achieve in that field or may change their mind about music as a choice in their recovery. This can be disappointing for me as arts bridge builder, but it is often the case that these individuals benefit immensely from other aspects of mainstream that the team is able to offer. I frequently find that some clients who have not engaged through the arts are nonetheless following mainstream goals via the befriending service or through volunteering and sports activities.
Conversely, it can be the case that a client who has been signposted to a music outlet in mainstream, goes on to achieve goals that go far beyond the initial contact with a music studio or rehearsal room that he or she has requested. Such clients can and do develop employment and self-employment pathways or go on to further and higher education opportunities. These goals have been achieved through the initial contact with mainstream and couldn't have been realised any other way. Mainstream itself will often generate these opportunities for the client independently of the bridge building service.
Because bridge building has the strength to enable an 'oblique' approach, there can be limitless opportunities for motivated clients choosing their recovery pathway. Even a relapse can only hold up rather than destroy the process. There are confidence and skill levels that clients develop in mainstream that will stand them in good stead.
Friday, 10 June 2011
The role of the bridge builder
Bridge building is a strategy developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Designed to promote social inclusion for groups that might otherwise be marginalised, bridge building has been used to immense effect in the mental health field. Bridge building is particularly useful for people who suffer or who are in recovery from severe and enduring mental health conditions.
The role of the bridge builder is very simple. It is to help facilitate access to mainstream environments for individuals, based entirely on their own personal choices. The original social inclusion think-tanks were set up by the (then) office of the deputy prime minister. Nine key social domains were identified as key to individual development. However, it is not expected that every individual would be expected to access every single domain, nor would they wish to. The key areas include employment, arts & culture, faith and cultural communities, education & training, volunteering, befriending, sports and wellbeing. There are other domains as well, such as friends and family and statutory services.
Within these contexts, a bridge building team can be set up, working in mainstream with referrals from other agencies particularly NHS and social services. It is crucial that the organisation that is commissioned to carry out mainstream is itself embedded in a mainstream environment or conducts its interactions with clients in the big wide world, rather than in a clinical setting. It is the only way that a conversation with a client about their hopes and aspirations can be realistic and genuine. These approaches are entirely in line with the way mainstream was envisaged as a key part of the care pathway and an alternative to what Dr. Pat Deegan has aptly described as 'a career in mental health'.
The role of the bridge builder is very simple. It is to help facilitate access to mainstream environments for individuals, based entirely on their own personal choices. The original social inclusion think-tanks were set up by the (then) office of the deputy prime minister. Nine key social domains were identified as key to individual development. However, it is not expected that every individual would be expected to access every single domain, nor would they wish to. The key areas include employment, arts & culture, faith and cultural communities, education & training, volunteering, befriending, sports and wellbeing. There are other domains as well, such as friends and family and statutory services.
Within these contexts, a bridge building team can be set up, working in mainstream with referrals from other agencies particularly NHS and social services. It is crucial that the organisation that is commissioned to carry out mainstream is itself embedded in a mainstream environment or conducts its interactions with clients in the big wide world, rather than in a clinical setting. It is the only way that a conversation with a client about their hopes and aspirations can be realistic and genuine. These approaches are entirely in line with the way mainstream was envisaged as a key part of the care pathway and an alternative to what Dr. Pat Deegan has aptly described as 'a career in mental health'.
Friday, 25 March 2011
Care & support can hinder recovery - revisited
Care and support are not the only models or frameworks for mental health recovery. The establishing or re-establishing of what Dr. Pat Deegan refers to as 'valued social roles' can be held back by a mental health system that often encourages the client to choose 'a career in mental health' (Pat Deegan).
A career in mental health means living longterm on benefits and longterm marginalisation from mainstream life. A career in mental health will identify symptoms, diagnoses, medication and team support but will often leave out aspirations, goals, priorities.
Where access to mainstream is encouraged, it can often be through projects or programmes which take place in special settings or are designed for people with mental health conditions. So the marginalisation continues.
Where the retardation of an individual's access to mainstream is most acutely felt often lies conversely in the areas where there is the most 'support'. Nowhere is this more clearly visible than in secondary residential care.
Whereas the main thrust of residential care in mental health is on clients' independence, the system often works to block individual progress. Mental health residential teams expend a lot of effort and do a lot of work encouraging their clients to seek independent opportunities in mainstream life. Unfortunately, the desire to do these activites may not derive from the client him or herself and the contact with mainstream is delayed, deferred or postponed sometimes indefinitely.
Where a client is goaded into mainstream in this way, he or she will sometime be bussed or taxied in to the mainstream venue, accompanied by a key worker. But no amount of buses, taxis or key workers can replace the simple presence of individual personal motivation.
In secondary care, a client's last-minute postponing of the scheduled meeting with mainstream is also commonplace - often postponing three, four or five times. The assumption by services that an able-bodied physically-well individual should need to be accompanied to a local venue by a carer or key worker at all times, seems to me profoundly patronising.
A genuine return to mainstream can only take place in mainstream. This is where the role of the bridge builder comes in. A client who has worked with a mainstream bridge builder identifies goals and priorities for him or herself. It is the bridge builder's job to signpost or link the client up with mainstream venues appropriate to the client's life choices. The amount of support a client may request from there on is determined only by the client.
A career in mental health means living longterm on benefits and longterm marginalisation from mainstream life. A career in mental health will identify symptoms, diagnoses, medication and team support but will often leave out aspirations, goals, priorities.
Where access to mainstream is encouraged, it can often be through projects or programmes which take place in special settings or are designed for people with mental health conditions. So the marginalisation continues.
Where the retardation of an individual's access to mainstream is most acutely felt often lies conversely in the areas where there is the most 'support'. Nowhere is this more clearly visible than in secondary residential care.
Whereas the main thrust of residential care in mental health is on clients' independence, the system often works to block individual progress. Mental health residential teams expend a lot of effort and do a lot of work encouraging their clients to seek independent opportunities in mainstream life. Unfortunately, the desire to do these activites may not derive from the client him or herself and the contact with mainstream is delayed, deferred or postponed sometimes indefinitely.
Where a client is goaded into mainstream in this way, he or she will sometime be bussed or taxied in to the mainstream venue, accompanied by a key worker. But no amount of buses, taxis or key workers can replace the simple presence of individual personal motivation.
In secondary care, a client's last-minute postponing of the scheduled meeting with mainstream is also commonplace - often postponing three, four or five times. The assumption by services that an able-bodied physically-well individual should need to be accompanied to a local venue by a carer or key worker at all times, seems to me profoundly patronising.
A genuine return to mainstream can only take place in mainstream. This is where the role of the bridge builder comes in. A client who has worked with a mainstream bridge builder identifies goals and priorities for him or herself. It is the bridge builder's job to signpost or link the client up with mainstream venues appropriate to the client's life choices. The amount of support a client may request from there on is determined only by the client.
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Friday, 4 March 2011
What does Pat Deegan mean by a 'career in mental health'?
When Dr. Pat Deegan coined the phrase 'a career in mental health' she was referring to endemic features of the mental health system prevailing at the time when she was first clincially diagnosed. A 'career in mental health' was the path that her specialists advised would become her future. It would mean a life on benefits, no chance of employment and massively limited access to opportunities. It would mean an end to her aspirations, and end to her hopes. Effectively, the end of a career.
For people who have been through secondary mental health experiences in the UK, a 'career in mental health' can still be the norm. Huge inroads have been made nonetheless. The recovery programmes that have been set up by many clinical teams all around the country. The user-led services that are widely encouraged and supported. The involvement in recruiting people who have experienced mental health conditions for employment within services. The movement from supported accommodation to independent living. The emphasis on mainstream by third-sector organisations working alongside the NHS and statutory services. The 'paths to personalisation' programme and the independence-based use of direct payments and personal budgets.
These initiatives and more continue to help enable people with severe and enduring diagnoses to find personal autonomy and make a break from the pitifully bleak reality of Deegan's appositely-described 'career in mental health'.
But what of the future?
In the UK we are witnessing the root-and-branch dismantling of mental health services as they currently stand. There will be no more primary care teams and more and more people are being discharged from CMHTs (Community Mental Health Teams). Within two years consortia of GPs and general practice surgeries will become the budget-holders both for primary and secondary mental health care.
At this stage there is no way of telling whether these changes will be for the better or for the worse. The only implacable fact is change itself, massive and across the board.
The fallout from the first tremors of change is already with us. The much-vaunted personalisation programme was due to be rolled out universally throughout the UK within 18 months. Now it is unlikely to happen at all. Personal budgets could well be forgotten in the midst of the general upheaval of services. Certainly, direct payments for mental health have become a thing of the past, at least in the south-west London borough where I work as a bridge builder. This is despite service users having a legal right to direct payments where these can be shown to be a strong factor in their recoveries.
The experience of personalisation in other parts of the UK may well be different and could paint a much more hopeful picture. Unfortunately, in the tsunami of change it won't last.
For people who have been through secondary mental health experiences in the UK, a 'career in mental health' can still be the norm. Huge inroads have been made nonetheless. The recovery programmes that have been set up by many clinical teams all around the country. The user-led services that are widely encouraged and supported. The involvement in recruiting people who have experienced mental health conditions for employment within services. The movement from supported accommodation to independent living. The emphasis on mainstream by third-sector organisations working alongside the NHS and statutory services. The 'paths to personalisation' programme and the independence-based use of direct payments and personal budgets.
These initiatives and more continue to help enable people with severe and enduring diagnoses to find personal autonomy and make a break from the pitifully bleak reality of Deegan's appositely-described 'career in mental health'.
But what of the future?
In the UK we are witnessing the root-and-branch dismantling of mental health services as they currently stand. There will be no more primary care teams and more and more people are being discharged from CMHTs (Community Mental Health Teams). Within two years consortia of GPs and general practice surgeries will become the budget-holders both for primary and secondary mental health care.
At this stage there is no way of telling whether these changes will be for the better or for the worse. The only implacable fact is change itself, massive and across the board.
The fallout from the first tremors of change is already with us. The much-vaunted personalisation programme was due to be rolled out universally throughout the UK within 18 months. Now it is unlikely to happen at all. Personal budgets could well be forgotten in the midst of the general upheaval of services. Certainly, direct payments for mental health have become a thing of the past, at least in the south-west London borough where I work as a bridge builder. This is despite service users having a legal right to direct payments where these can be shown to be a strong factor in their recoveries.
The experience of personalisation in other parts of the UK may well be different and could paint a much more hopeful picture. Unfortunately, in the tsunami of change it won't last.
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Mental Health 2010 - Review of the Year 2010 part II
Questions
What was the mental health scene like in 2010 for those at the grittier end of the stick? What was 2010 like for people in secondary care? For people under community mental health teams?
Was there more recovery in 2010? Were people in secondary care able to access mainstream more in 2010? Were they less doomed to what Dr. Pat Deegan calls 'a career in mental health'?
Did people with severe and enduring mental health conditions receive enough support from services? Did they receive the right support? Did the support help them or hinder them?
Some answers
Throughout 2010, statutory and voluntary services responded to the health challenge of independence and mainstream in several key ways. Firstly, mental health teams set up some important initiatives. These were geared towards client independence and recovery. Many predominantly service-user led.
Recovery University in the south-west London borough of Merton enables secondary care clients to access a wide spectrum of trainings and skillsets. These include preparing for work, independence and life skills, confidence building, anger management and many more. Recovery University also trains service users as trainers for forthcoming courses.
Other community initiatives are also up and running, including wellbeing programmes and access to psychological therapies. However, pyschological therapies in non-clinical settings are still not available should you happen to have a severe and enduring mental health condition.
Training the trainers often draws upon experiences and qualifications which service users have already gained within their life journeys. Mainstream groups have also utilised service user skills as part of their own training programmes in areas such as visual arts, music and creative writing. This has taken the recovery university one stage further, providing paid employment and access to mainstream.
Statutory services continued to have success in keeping people out of hospital or limiting hospital stays to a minimum. The downside of this is that more and more people are being discharged from statutory services altogether. In 2011 this will inevitably result in more pressure on GP services, as it is these practitioners who will become responsible under the latest government directives.
The rolling-out of the personalisation programme should mean more access to direct payments for many clients under mental health care plans. It should also mean more and more creative uses of direct payments, as DP is being promoted for any activity or outcome that a client deems relevant to his or her recovery. The Personal Stories videos on the NMHDU site bears witness to some of these outcomes. With more and more people being discharged from mental health services, it is crucial that personalisation is a success in the new year.
Friday, 26 November 2010
Pat Deegan's Common Ground
Pat Deegan's Common Ground is an impressive new initiative in mental health recovery. Common Ground incorporates goal planning, liaison with GPs and services, person-centred planning and monitoring of medication. Plus a whole lot more.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Recovery news from NHS North West
Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust are committed to a recovery approach to mental health care. One element of this is to support service users who want to move into employment. They are currently piloting an Individual Placement and Support (IPS) service, funded by NHS North West.
The project consists of three Employment Specialists, based with Community Mental Health Teams, who help service users to find and remain in employment. The service offers help in preparing for work and engages with both employer and employee to provide ongoing support.
Joanne, one of the service users, is just one of the people to benefit from the pilot so far. After discussing her wish to get back into work with her Community Psychiatric Nurse (CPN) she was referred to the team's Employment Specialist who used the Mental Health Recovery star to talk through Joanne's situation and where she wanted to be in terms of finding a job. They then developed an action plan and the Employment Specialist helped Joanne to find jobs that were suited to her work history and aspirations. Joanne decided that working part time would be the best way to ease back into work life and through regular meetings, the Employment Specialist helped her to explore job vacancies. Eventually they identified one position that suited Joanne in terms of job description, location and number of hours.
The Employment Specialist arranged a meeting with the Disability Employment Adviser at the local Job Centre for support with in-work benefit calculations, and completing a permitted work form with a supporting letter from the Employment Specialist. 10 weeks after engaging with the IPS service, Joanne was successful at securing a Receptionist post for 12 hours a week and stays in touch with her Employment Specialist who provides in work support.
For more information please contact Zeph Curwen, Service Manager Occupational Activity & Employment, zeph.curwen@mhsc.nhs.uk or 0161 720 4809.
For more information on the IPS project contact Lucy Rowe in the Health and Work Programme, Workforce Directorate: lucy.rowe@northwest.nhs.uk or 0161 625 7350.
The project consists of three Employment Specialists, based with Community Mental Health Teams, who help service users to find and remain in employment. The service offers help in preparing for work and engages with both employer and employee to provide ongoing support.
Joanne, one of the service users, is just one of the people to benefit from the pilot so far. After discussing her wish to get back into work with her Community Psychiatric Nurse (CPN) she was referred to the team's Employment Specialist who used the Mental Health Recovery star to talk through Joanne's situation and where she wanted to be in terms of finding a job. They then developed an action plan and the Employment Specialist helped Joanne to find jobs that were suited to her work history and aspirations. Joanne decided that working part time would be the best way to ease back into work life and through regular meetings, the Employment Specialist helped her to explore job vacancies. Eventually they identified one position that suited Joanne in terms of job description, location and number of hours.
The Employment Specialist arranged a meeting with the Disability Employment Adviser at the local Job Centre for support with in-work benefit calculations, and completing a permitted work form with a supporting letter from the Employment Specialist. 10 weeks after engaging with the IPS service, Joanne was successful at securing a Receptionist post for 12 hours a week and stays in touch with her Employment Specialist who provides in work support.
For more information please contact Zeph Curwen, Service Manager Occupational Activity & Employment, zeph.curwen@mhsc.nhs.uk or 0161 720 4809.
For more information on the IPS project contact Lucy Rowe in the Health and Work Programme, Workforce Directorate: lucy.rowe@northwest.nhs.uk or 0161 625 7350.
Saturday, 24 July 2010
A mainstream model for recovery
Care and support are not the only models or frameworks for mental health recovery. The establishing or re-establishing of what Dr. Pat Deegan refers to as 'valued social roles' can be held back by a mental health system that often encourages the client to choose 'a career in mental health' (Pat Deegan).
A career in mental health means living longterm on benefits and longterm marginalisation from mainstream life. A career in mental health will identify symptoms, diagnoses, medication and team support but will often leave out aspirations, goals, priorities.
Where access to mainstream is encouraged, it can often be through projects or programmes which take place in special settings or are designed for people with mental health conditions. So the marginalisation continues.
A genuine return to mainstream can only take place in mainstream. This is where the role of the bridge builder comes in. A client who has worked with a mainstream bridge builder identifies goals and priorities for him or herself. It is the bridge builder's job to signpost or link the client up with mainstream venues appropriate to the client's life choices. The amount of support a client may request from there on is determined only by the client not by the bridge builder.
A career in mental health means living longterm on benefits and longterm marginalisation from mainstream life. A career in mental health will identify symptoms, diagnoses, medication and team support but will often leave out aspirations, goals, priorities.
Where access to mainstream is encouraged, it can often be through projects or programmes which take place in special settings or are designed for people with mental health conditions. So the marginalisation continues.
A genuine return to mainstream can only take place in mainstream. This is where the role of the bridge builder comes in. A client who has worked with a mainstream bridge builder identifies goals and priorities for him or herself. It is the bridge builder's job to signpost or link the client up with mainstream venues appropriate to the client's life choices. The amount of support a client may request from there on is determined only by the client not by the bridge builder.
Friday, 21 May 2010
Recovery
Recovery
Recovery is a process of hope and aspiration that signals the return to mainstream life for those who have experienced mental health problems. Recovery can take place regardless of whether the individual is symptom-free or not. Hope and recovery are recognised as key parts of the care pathway. Social inclusion bridge builders work with clients on a recovery programme based on the client's own choices and aspirations.
More about Recovery and the work of Dr. Pat Deegan
Recovery is a process of hope and aspiration that signals the return to mainstream life for those who have experienced mental health problems. Recovery can take place regardless of whether the individual is symptom-free or not. Hope and recovery are recognised as key parts of the care pathway. Social inclusion bridge builders work with clients on a recovery programme based on the client's own choices and aspirations.
More about Recovery and the work of Dr. Pat Deegan
Friday, 23 April 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)