Decision Making and Mental Health Care
Up until recently, decisions regarding mental health care for an individual were being made by mental health care professionals based on what the professionals thought the client needed. However, things are now changing with clients’ aspirations now being incorporated. A person receiving care to their clinician as cited by Centrone and Ali (2018), “Don’t tell me I’m the diver of my treatment. I’m not even in the car!”
Recovery Principles and Shared Decision Making
Recovery principles that are supported when shared decision making is employed include; considering the uniqueness of the individual seeking mental health, allowing real choices for both the patient and mental health professionals, attitudes and rights of parties involved in the recovery process, dignity and respect in interactions, partnership and communication, and ability to evaluate recovery.
The Impact of Shared Decision Making on the Recovery Relationship
Shared decisions would have such a great impact on the recovery relationship because they would eliminate many of the relationship problems that the traditional system creates. According to Amering & Schmolke (2009), the usual practice of appointing a key-worker to work with the client without consulting the client is not only wrong but can, in some circumstances, be dangerous both to the client and the professional.
Challenges and Resistance to Shared Decision Making
Mental health professionals would resist the use of shared decision making in situations where implementation may be challenging, for example, with patients who may not be able to make decisions on their own. There are also not adequate innovations in mental health care that can be used as decision aids for challenging patients.
The Importance of Shared Decision Making in Difficult Situations
Shared decision making could be important when there is a difficult situation like a relapse, the patient and his loved ones will face the challenge better. Patients will also know what options are available to them and the benefits and risks of each. It is easier to monitor the illness; legal and ethical issues are minimized. Being part of decision making can help the patient feel better about care and may even influence the outcome, Borg & Kristiansen (2004) confirm that service users valued professionals who conveyed hope, shared power, were available when needed, were open regarding the diversity in what helps, and were willing to stretch the boundaries of what is considered the ‘‘professional’’ role.
The Principles of Ron’s Recovery Strategy
The principles of Ron’s recovery strategy are Choice/Ownership/People/Self (COPS). Amering & Schmolke (2009) choice is not only the ability to pick from a number of predetermined treatment options; it is also about having the power to add that which you as a consumer want to those options. Ownership means owning the experience of mental illness and then making the decision to set out on a recovery-journey. Person (People) is a designated supporter within a scheme of person-centered assistance, this person must be chosen very carefully as trusting relationships are an important foundation for a recovery plan. The biggest hurdle for recovery is the person (Self). For the purpose of recovery, the patient has to decide to take control and make decisions towards recovery.
Applying Ron’s Recovery Strategy to Voice Hearers
The Ron’s recovery strategy applies to those who hear voices because it gives the recovery journey a clear itinerary. It improves interactions between practitioners and people who hear voices as it involves patients in their treatment, thereby creating trusting relationships that are vital in the recovery process.
The Voice Hearer’s Group
The Voice Hearer’s Group brings together voice-hearers and mental health professionals. It provides support to enable voice-hearers to deal with their own voices and rekindle the possibility of positive change. Normalizing the experience of hearing voices implies that voice hearing might not necessarily be madness. Ron in Amering & Schmolke (2009) criticizes the power of psychiatry to define experiences not only because it is based on a lack of scientific validation for the diagnosis of 'schizophrenia'.
References
Amering, M., " Schmolke, M. (2009). Personal experience as evidence and as a basis for model development. In Recovery in Mental Health: Reshaping scientific and clinical responsibilities (p. 64). John Wiley " Sons. Ltd.
Borg, M., " Kristiansen, K. (2004). Recovery-oriented professionals: Helping relationships in mental health services. Journal of Mental Health, 13(5), 493-505. doi:10.1080/09638230400006809
Centrone, W., " Ali, S. (2018, March). Shared decision-making in the treatment of serious mental illness and opioid/substance use disorders. Paper presented at SAMHSA.
