对话如何增强能力和参与:为批准的心理健康专业人员交流实践提供证据

IF 1.7 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL WORK
Jill Hemmington
{"title":"对话如何增强能力和参与:为批准的心理健康专业人员交流实践提供证据","authors":"Jill Hemmington","doi":"10.1177/14733250241268731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) undertake Mental Health Act (MHA) interviews and they make the ultimate decision, based on doctors’ medical recommendations, to detain an individual in hospital without their consent. AMHPs are required to embed the statutory guiding principle of Empowerment and Involvement as well as to maximise service users’ self-determination and this is part of a broader policy orientation toward principles of participation, involvement, shared decision-making and supported decision-making. Yet there is very little research in this area and AMHP practice takes place in the absence of guidelines or clear evidence base. Consequently, more needs to be understood about effective techniques for communication and involvement. This study was conducted with AMHPs from an AMHP service in England. A qualitative methodology was employed to gather indepth information about AMHPs’ communicative practices. MHA assessments were observed and audio-recorded to enable Conversation Analysis to be used to analyse the content and style of communication within interactions. Findings suggest that at a micro, conversational level, AMHPs worked to address obstacles to communication as well as to maintain, or restore, affiliation and alignment in their relationships with service users. Evidence suggests that communicative techniques form part of AMHPs’ broader coordinating and empowering role. The study concludes that there is a need for a more deliberate and deliberative approach to re-engineer how AMHPs and service users work together, providing original evidence for AMHP practice and supporting future training.","PeriodicalId":47677,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Social Work","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How conversations can empower and involve: Building the evidence for Approved Mental Health Professionals’ communicative practices\",\"authors\":\"Jill Hemmington\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14733250241268731\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) undertake Mental Health Act (MHA) interviews and they make the ultimate decision, based on doctors’ medical recommendations, to detain an individual in hospital without their consent. AMHPs are required to embed the statutory guiding principle of Empowerment and Involvement as well as to maximise service users’ self-determination and this is part of a broader policy orientation toward principles of participation, involvement, shared decision-making and supported decision-making. Yet there is very little research in this area and AMHP practice takes place in the absence of guidelines or clear evidence base. Consequently, more needs to be understood about effective techniques for communication and involvement. This study was conducted with AMHPs from an AMHP service in England. A qualitative methodology was employed to gather indepth information about AMHPs’ communicative practices. MHA assessments were observed and audio-recorded to enable Conversation Analysis to be used to analyse the content and style of communication within interactions. Findings suggest that at a micro, conversational level, AMHPs worked to address obstacles to communication as well as to maintain, or restore, affiliation and alignment in their relationships with service users. Evidence suggests that communicative techniques form part of AMHPs’ broader coordinating and empowering role. The study concludes that there is a need for a more deliberate and deliberative approach to re-engineer how AMHPs and service users work together, providing original evidence for AMHP practice and supporting future training.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47677,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Social Work\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Social Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250241268731\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250241268731","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

经批准的精神卫生专业人员(AMHPs)负责《精神卫生法》(MHA)的面谈,他们根据医生的医疗建议做出最终决定,在未经个人同意的情况下将其拘留在医院。精神健康专业人员必须贯彻 "授权和参与 "的法定指导原则,并最大限度地发挥服务使用者的自决权,这也是更广泛的政策导向的一部分,即参与、介入、共同决策和辅助决策的原则。然而,这方面的研究却很少,AMHP 的实践也缺乏指导方针或明确的证据基础。因此,我们需要进一步了解沟通和参与的有效技巧。本研究的对象是英格兰一家医疗卫生服务机构的医疗卫生人员。研究采用了定性的方法来收集有关助理医疗保健师沟通实践的深入信息。研究人员对医疗保健评估进行了观察和录音,以便使用会话分析法分析互动中的交流内容和风格。研究结果表明,在微观的对话层面上,助理医疗保健师努力解决沟通障碍,并在与服务对象的关系中保持或恢复从属关系和一致性。有证据表明,沟通技巧是助理医务人员更广泛的协调和赋权角色的一部分。本研究的结论是,有必要采取更加深思熟虑的方法来重新设计助理医疗保健师与服务使用者的合作方式,为助理医疗保健师的实践提供原始证据,并为未来的培训提供支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How conversations can empower and involve: Building the evidence for Approved Mental Health Professionals’ communicative practices
Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) undertake Mental Health Act (MHA) interviews and they make the ultimate decision, based on doctors’ medical recommendations, to detain an individual in hospital without their consent. AMHPs are required to embed the statutory guiding principle of Empowerment and Involvement as well as to maximise service users’ self-determination and this is part of a broader policy orientation toward principles of participation, involvement, shared decision-making and supported decision-making. Yet there is very little research in this area and AMHP practice takes place in the absence of guidelines or clear evidence base. Consequently, more needs to be understood about effective techniques for communication and involvement. This study was conducted with AMHPs from an AMHP service in England. A qualitative methodology was employed to gather indepth information about AMHPs’ communicative practices. MHA assessments were observed and audio-recorded to enable Conversation Analysis to be used to analyse the content and style of communication within interactions. Findings suggest that at a micro, conversational level, AMHPs worked to address obstacles to communication as well as to maintain, or restore, affiliation and alignment in their relationships with service users. Evidence suggests that communicative techniques form part of AMHPs’ broader coordinating and empowering role. The study concludes that there is a need for a more deliberate and deliberative approach to re-engineer how AMHPs and service users work together, providing original evidence for AMHP practice and supporting future training.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: Qualitative Social Work provides a forum for those interested in qualitative research and evaluation and in qualitative approaches to practice. The journal facilitates interactive dialogue and integration between those interested in qualitative research and methodology and those involved in the world of practice. It reflects the fact that these worlds are increasingly international and interdisciplinary in nature. The journal is a forum for rigorous dialogue that promotes qualitatively informed professional practice and inquiry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信