Service type | Service name | Research focus | Studies reporting | Finding(s) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(n/N)d | Quality | Source(s) | ||||||
Good | Fair | Poor | ||||||
Community-Based Residential Care | CCUa | Consumer perspective | 1/2 | – | – | 1 | [24]b | ▪ 8-year follow-up post service entry identified themes of disempowerment, instability in accommodation and social networks, issues with continuity of care, and loss were identified. |
Community Residences | 1/2 | – | – | 1 | [23]b | ▪ 6-year follow-up found residents describing increased freedom, but also difficulties enhancing social networks, absence of new goals and lack of expectation of change in life circumstances. | ||
1/1 | – | – | 1 | [42] | ▪ Residents express preference for community living to long-term inpatient care in the initial period following transfer. | |||
Staff perspective | 1/1 | – | – | 1 | [42] | ▪ Staff identify the process of new skill acquisition for formally de-institutionalised residents as ‘not easy’ and acknowledged slow but continual progress, as well as the reducing support needs for residents over time. | ||
Transitional Residential Rehabilitation | CCU | Consumer perspective | 4/4 | 2 | – | 2 | ▪ The services are viewed favourably by consumers entering and engaging with them, particularly in comparison to inpatient psychiatric care. Positive aspects of the care environment include increased opportunity for independence and activity engagement and availability of caring staff. | |
2/4 | 1 | – | 1 | ▪ Consumers understand the transitional and rehabilitation foci of the service. Additionally, they view it as providing an environment facilitating social interaction, friendship and mutual support between co-residents. | ||||
1/4 | 1 | – | – | [40] | ▪ Content analysis found that most consumers had been involved in the decision to come to the CCU, and the most common reason for engagement was accommodation instability rather than the opportunity to engage in rehabilitation. | |||
1/4 | 1 | – | – | [39] | ▪ Favourable expectations of the increased availability of Peer Support Workers at the study sites trialling an Integrated Staffing Model. | |||
Staff perspective | 3/3 | 2 | 1 | – | ▪ Staff understandings of these services are consistent with the designated service models. | |||
1/3 | – | 1 | – | [30]c | ▪ Content domains of the recovery concept identified as: a shared vision of recovery as ‘a continuous journey’; the importance of clinicians ‘promoting hope’, shifting emphasis from rehabilitation to ‘promoting autonomy and self-determination’, the centrality of ‘meaningful engagement and collaborative partnerships’, ‘holistic and personalised care’, and ‘community participation and citizenship’. | |||
1/3 | 1 | – | – | [45] | ▪ Four themes relating to the staff concept of the CCU were identified: ‘rehabilitation is different to treatment’, a ‘positive transitional space’, ‘they (consumers) have to be ready to engage’, and ‘recovery is central to rehabilitation practice’. ▪ Burnout and external pressure from the broader mental health system limit the ability to deliver recovery-oriented rehabilitation. | |||
1/3 | 1 | – | – | [48] | ▪ Commencing staff have positive expectations of the integration of peer support with clinical staff under the Integrated Staffing Model; anticipating the CCU to be ‘a place of mutual learning and co-development’, ‘a temporary and transitional place’, and provide a simulacra of community living. | |||
Family perspective | 1/1 | – | – | 1 | [58] | ▪ Service viewed favourably in the single family member perspective presented. | ||
CRCa | Multiple stakeholder perspectives | 1/1 | – | – | 1 | [31] | ▪ Consumers understand the transitional and rehabilitation foci of the service. ▪ Staff understanding of the service is consistent with the designated service models. | |
HHa | Multiple stakeholder perspectives | 1/1 | – | – | 1 | [33] | ▪ The service was viewed favourably by consumers and their families. |