Kim Jørgensen1, Tonie Rasmussen2, Morten Hansen3, Kate Andreasson1. 1. The Research Collaboration, Psychiatric Centre North Zealand, Hillerød, Danmark/Denmark. 2. Psychosocial rehabilitation consultant, Center for Quality and Development, Department of Social and Health, Rudersdal Kommune, Birkerød, Denmark. 3. Peer support worker, Educator, FACT Team 1, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Community care; decision-making; health services research; long-term care; mental health
Authors: Kim Jørgensen; Tonie Rasmussen; Morten Hansen; Kate Andreasson; Bengt Karlsson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kim Jørgensen; Kate Andreasson; Tonie Rasmussen; Morten Hansen; Bengt Karlsson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 3.390