A代表什么?探索AMHP“重新批准”的过程和改进的机会:来自叙事文献综述的主题

Q2 Social Sciences
George Mearns
{"title":"A代表什么?探索AMHP“重新批准”的过程和改进的机会:来自叙事文献综述的主题","authors":"George Mearns","doi":"10.1080/09503153.2022.2129047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) undertake key functions under the Mental Health Act 1983 (2007) and are legally required to be ‘re-approved’ by local authorities every five years. A narrative review of the academic literature pertaining to the process of AMHP re-approval was conducted to explore relevant themes and opportunities for improvement. The absence of a standardised process for AMHP re-approval and the wider national policy context around the AMHP role indicates a review of this issue is particularly timely. The review identified a lack of existing material explicitly relating to the issue of AMHP ‘re-approval’, with only four articles generated via the initial search parameters of ‘AMHP’ and ‘re-approval’ or comparators. An expansion of the search terms generated 57 articles with reference to ‘re/approval’ in the context of AMHP practice, from which three emergent themes were identified - (1) policy guidelines - namely the National Workforce Plan for AMHPs (2) service user and carer involvement (3) the social perspective. The TAPUPAS framework of knowledge evaluation was applied to a source from each theme to explore opportunities for improvement. The review indicates considerable scope for further exploration of AMHP practice in general and the issue of AMHP re-approval in particular.","PeriodicalId":35184,"journal":{"name":"Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Does the ‘A’ Stand for? Exploring the Process of AMHP ‘Re-Approval’ and Opportunities for Improvement: Themes from a Narrative Literature Review\",\"authors\":\"George Mearns\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09503153.2022.2129047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) undertake key functions under the Mental Health Act 1983 (2007) and are legally required to be ‘re-approved’ by local authorities every five years. A narrative review of the academic literature pertaining to the process of AMHP re-approval was conducted to explore relevant themes and opportunities for improvement. The absence of a standardised process for AMHP re-approval and the wider national policy context around the AMHP role indicates a review of this issue is particularly timely. The review identified a lack of existing material explicitly relating to the issue of AMHP ‘re-approval’, with only four articles generated via the initial search parameters of ‘AMHP’ and ‘re-approval’ or comparators. An expansion of the search terms generated 57 articles with reference to ‘re/approval’ in the context of AMHP practice, from which three emergent themes were identified - (1) policy guidelines - namely the National Workforce Plan for AMHPs (2) service user and carer involvement (3) the social perspective. The TAPUPAS framework of knowledge evaluation was applied to a source from each theme to explore opportunities for improvement. The review indicates considerable scope for further exploration of AMHP practice in general and the issue of AMHP re-approval in particular.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2022.2129047\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2022.2129047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What Does the ‘A’ Stand for? Exploring the Process of AMHP ‘Re-Approval’ and Opportunities for Improvement: Themes from a Narrative Literature Review
Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) undertake key functions under the Mental Health Act 1983 (2007) and are legally required to be ‘re-approved’ by local authorities every five years. A narrative review of the academic literature pertaining to the process of AMHP re-approval was conducted to explore relevant themes and opportunities for improvement. The absence of a standardised process for AMHP re-approval and the wider national policy context around the AMHP role indicates a review of this issue is particularly timely. The review identified a lack of existing material explicitly relating to the issue of AMHP ‘re-approval’, with only four articles generated via the initial search parameters of ‘AMHP’ and ‘re-approval’ or comparators. An expansion of the search terms generated 57 articles with reference to ‘re/approval’ in the context of AMHP practice, from which three emergent themes were identified - (1) policy guidelines - namely the National Workforce Plan for AMHPs (2) service user and carer involvement (3) the social perspective. The TAPUPAS framework of knowledge evaluation was applied to a source from each theme to explore opportunities for improvement. The review indicates considerable scope for further exploration of AMHP practice in general and the issue of AMHP re-approval in particular.
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
Practice
Practice Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
×
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