Recovery Principles in mental health involve health practitioners using a specific recovery plan to help and promote focused care and resilience in people with mental health disorders. These recovery concepts include not just the treatment and management of symptoms, but also a holistic recovery perspective that encompasses the patient's entire life, including community, mind, spirit, and body (Newton, 2013). Although there is no uniform concept of recovery among mental health experts, all of the current recovery plans are designed to restore hope and assist mentally ill individuals in regaining a meaningful life despite their condition. In this paper two types of mental recovery plans are discussed, these plans include Clinical Recovery and Personal Recovery Plan. Personal recovery is an effective recovery process that involves the patient every step of the way, and it is built around the patient where they are required to determine their preferred path of recovery. It is responsive to the patients’ unique experiences, needs, cultural backgrounds, and strengths. It is an individualized approach that empowers patients to get involved in all the decision made that affects them. On the other hand, the Clinical recovery plan focuses on getting rid of the symptoms of mentally ill patients but this plan lack personal connection with the patient. This paper examines the differences between the clinical and personal recovery plans as shown in the case study, “Madness Made Me New” by Mary O’Hagan. As explained in the case study, version one story illustrate clinical recovery plan whereas the second story describes the personal recovery program that Jane went through.
As illustrated in Janet’s story in the case study, it is evident that clinical recovery differs significantly from personal recovery plans. Clinical recovery solely depends on the expertise of the mental health professionals and their main interest is to alleviate symptoms and social functioning of an individual. As illustrated in Version one story, Jane received a limited response after visiting the clinical recovery center which made her situation worse. Jane had undergone an intensely traumatic experience while growing up; at the beginning of her teenage years she was sexually assaulted by her uncle, an ordeal she did not reveal to her family (O’Hagan, 2014). She resorted to heavy drinking to deal with her alienation and shame. Despite explaining her condition to a health practitioner in the clinic, the physician was only interested in her symptoms but not the cause of her severe stress. When Jane called the crisis team that she wanted to kill herself, the clinical team advised her to take a cup of tea to relieve her condition.
This example demonstrates the clinical approach that is centered on the outcome of a problem. The clinical recovery services under this plan focus on the outcome and measure their intervention based on medication administered to treat emerging symptoms. Nurses and the mental health workers handling the patients have no direct experience of how it feels to go through severe stress and trauma that leads to madness. This form of treatment differs from personal recovery program which involves the treatment of mentally ill patients through the help of expertise of people who have lived the experience of mental illness.
Personal recovery highly supports the recovery process of the patients and recognizes that the process of recovery is not ultimately to cure the affected individuals, however, it is based on establishing opportunities that give patients choices and options to live a purposeful, meaningful and satisfying life that makes them become valued members of the community (Tucker, 2016). The program accepts the recovery results as unique and personal for every patient, and it transcends the exclusive clinical focus to incorporate an improved social inclusion and quality of life. Essentially, they empower the patients and recognize that they are at the center of the care they receive.
The principles used to administer personal recovery plan is demonstrated in the case study, Version two story of Janet. It is apparent that when Janet made a visit to Local Rock Up center she was accorded total support beginning from reception through to her stay in the facility while receiving treatment. Janet felt quite relieved when she narrated her entire experience to people who understood her. When she called the center to inform them about her suicidal feelings, one of the peer support workers responded immediately and arranged for Janet to go to a peer-run crisis house (O’Hagan, 2014). Unlike in her first story, Janet was assigned a peer mentor who offered to counsel and further organized for her another free counseling sessions with a specialized psychiatrist.
This program deviates from the isolated and poorly organized care given under clinical recovery. Personalized care is demonstrated as recovery-oriented, and it involves listening to the patients and applying the appropriate intervention obtained from carers and individuals who have gone through the same experience (Boardman, 2010). This is evident from the story when Janet confessed that it was an honor for her to share with a counselor who had gone through similar struggles. While administered in the facility, the peer workers would advise and reassure her every time she experienced the annoying voices and suicidal feelings. This type of care also protects individual human and legal rights as demonstrated in the story when Janet went to the city to give blessings after her conditions worsened (O’Hagan, 2014). Unlike the poor manner she was handled in the first story, the staff member in the facility attended to her respectfully `by taking her to a quiet place and staying close to her while Janet continued to perform the ritual.
Personal recovery emphasizes the development and maintenance of occupational, vocational, recreational and social activities which are meaningful to the affected individuals. Mental health workers are implementing this plan target to revive at all cost patients’ motivation and inspiration to live a meaningful life (Brown, 2012). This is illustrated well in the second story as the peer mentor assigned to her made intentional attempts to explain what Janet needed to cope and move on with life once she left the facility. The peer mentor instills her social skills that inspire Janet to feel strong and less isolated, hence renewed her hope in life. Through this inspiration and support, it is evident that Janet joined creative writing groups and art sessions which helped to build her vocational as well as recreational skills. The staff members within the facility took part in her recovery process where they help Janet to plan about how she would continue to study nursing. The members arranged for her friends to help her study while continue attending her sexual abuse counseling sessions. Thus, this extra support demonstrates personal recovery differs with the clinical approach that essentially lacks supportive care.
Clinical recovery lacks proper communication and partnership in its attempts to help patients receive treatment. It believes that every health care professional is an expert in a given area of specialization, also there is a limited partnership among the practitioners in the process of administering appropriate treatment plan (Nowinski, 2011). This can be seen through the first story where Janet spent all night waiting for the specialized mental health practitioner. The nurse on duty indicated that she had to go through another person. Instead of spending time with the patient, nurses in the facility stayed in their offices most of the time and failed to get in touch with the patients. This demonstrates a poor communication framework within the organization. The nurse did not pass the information on time hence Janet had to wait for a long time without receiving any help. Lack of partnership with this plan was evident also when Janet was discharged two weeks after her admission and she was given prescriptions and direction to visit a specialized psychiatrist at the community mental health center. This shows the facility lacks some specialized personnel and hence their service delivery compromises appropriate intervention to severe mentally ill patients.
On the other hand, a personal recovery plan is built upon a vibrant partnership and communication framework. The service delivery offered involves working in partnership with the concerned stakeholders particularly practitioners who have had a live experience of mental illness. This system values the importance of communicating clearly and sharing all essential information. It fosters the need to work in realistic and positive ways with the practitioners playing a bigger role in attending fully to the needs of the patients. This pattern of operation is clearly evident in the second story, where the peer mentor assigned to Janet worked in partnership with sexual abuse counselor to help address Janet’s psychological problems. The center went further to partner and involved the family of Janet in the entire process. They ensured Janet was in touch with her fellow students and the nursing school by liaising with student support service and the tutors.
References
Boardman, J. (2010). Social inclusion and mental health. London: Royal College of
Psychiatrists.
Brown, C. (2012). Recovery and Wellness: Models of Hope and Empowerment for People with
Mental Illness. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Newton, J. (2013). Preventing mental ill-health: Informing public health planning and mental
health practice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Nowinski, J. (2011). The family recovery program: A professional's guide. Center City, Minn:
Hazelden.
O’Hagan, M. (2014): Madness Made Me. New Zealand.
Tucker, W. (2016). Narratives of recovery from serious mental illness.
