Community treatment orders: exploring the paradox of personalisation under compulsion

Laura Catherine Banks, Julia Stroud, Karolina Doughty

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The introduction of supervised community treatment, delivered through community treatment orders (CTOs) in England and Wales, contrasts with the policy of personalisation, which aims to provide service users autonomy and choice over services. This article draws upon findings from a primarily qualitative study which included 72 semi-structured interviews (conducted between January and December 2012) with practitioners, service users and nearest relatives situated within a particular NHS Trust. The article also refers to a follow-on study in which 30 Approved Mental Health Practitioners were interviewed. The studies aimed to develop a better understanding of how compulsory powers are being used in the community, within a policy context that emphasises personalisation and person-centred care in service delivery. Findings from the interview data (which were analysed thematically) suggest that service users were often inadequately informed about the CTO and their legal rights. Furthermore, they tended to be offered little, or no, opportunity to make choices and have involvement in the making of the CTO and setting of conditions. Retrospectively, however, restrictions were often felt beneficial to recovery, and service users reported greater involvement in decisions at review stage. Areas of good practice are identified through which person-centred care can be better incorporated into the making of CTOs.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e181-e190
JournalHealth & Social Care in the Community
Volume24
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

compulsion
personalization
community
Interviews
Civil Rights
human being
Wales
interview
England
best practice
Mental Health
autonomy
mental health

Cite this

@article{6a9de9a51b704ab6adb890a21b87f7a5,
title = "Community treatment orders: exploring the paradox of personalisation under compulsion",
abstract = "The introduction of supervised community treatment, delivered through community treatment orders (CTOs) in England and Wales, contrasts with the policy of personalisation, which aims to provide service users autonomy and choice over services. This article draws upon findings from a primarily qualitative study which included 72 semi-structured interviews (conducted between January and December 2012) with practitioners, service users and nearest relatives situated within a particular NHS Trust. The article also refers to a follow-on study in which 30 Approved Mental Health Practitioners were interviewed. The studies aimed to develop a better understanding of how compulsory powers are being used in the community, within a policy context that emphasises personalisation and person-centred care in service delivery. Findings from the interview data (which were analysed thematically) suggest that service users were often inadequately informed about the CTO and their legal rights. Furthermore, they tended to be offered little, or no, opportunity to make choices and have involvement in the making of the CTO and setting of conditions. Retrospectively, however, restrictions were often felt beneficial to recovery, and service users reported greater involvement in decisions at review stage. Areas of good practice are identified through which person-centred care can be better incorporated into the making of CTOs.",
author = "Banks, {Laura Catherine} and Julia Stroud and Karolina Doughty",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1111/hsc.12268",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "e181--e190",
journal = "Health & Social Care in the Community",
issn = "0966-0410",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "6",

}

Community treatment orders: exploring the paradox of personalisation under compulsion. / Banks, Laura Catherine; Stroud, Julia; Doughty, Karolina.

In: Health & Social Care in the Community, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2016, p. e181-e190.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Community treatment orders: exploring the paradox of personalisation under compulsion

AU - Banks, Laura Catherine

AU - Stroud, Julia

AU - Doughty, Karolina

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - The introduction of supervised community treatment, delivered through community treatment orders (CTOs) in England and Wales, contrasts with the policy of personalisation, which aims to provide service users autonomy and choice over services. This article draws upon findings from a primarily qualitative study which included 72 semi-structured interviews (conducted between January and December 2012) with practitioners, service users and nearest relatives situated within a particular NHS Trust. The article also refers to a follow-on study in which 30 Approved Mental Health Practitioners were interviewed. The studies aimed to develop a better understanding of how compulsory powers are being used in the community, within a policy context that emphasises personalisation and person-centred care in service delivery. Findings from the interview data (which were analysed thematically) suggest that service users were often inadequately informed about the CTO and their legal rights. Furthermore, they tended to be offered little, or no, opportunity to make choices and have involvement in the making of the CTO and setting of conditions. Retrospectively, however, restrictions were often felt beneficial to recovery, and service users reported greater involvement in decisions at review stage. Areas of good practice are identified through which person-centred care can be better incorporated into the making of CTOs.

AB - The introduction of supervised community treatment, delivered through community treatment orders (CTOs) in England and Wales, contrasts with the policy of personalisation, which aims to provide service users autonomy and choice over services. This article draws upon findings from a primarily qualitative study which included 72 semi-structured interviews (conducted between January and December 2012) with practitioners, service users and nearest relatives situated within a particular NHS Trust. The article also refers to a follow-on study in which 30 Approved Mental Health Practitioners were interviewed. The studies aimed to develop a better understanding of how compulsory powers are being used in the community, within a policy context that emphasises personalisation and person-centred care in service delivery. Findings from the interview data (which were analysed thematically) suggest that service users were often inadequately informed about the CTO and their legal rights. Furthermore, they tended to be offered little, or no, opportunity to make choices and have involvement in the making of the CTO and setting of conditions. Retrospectively, however, restrictions were often felt beneficial to recovery, and service users reported greater involvement in decisions at review stage. Areas of good practice are identified through which person-centred care can be better incorporated into the making of CTOs.

U2 - 10.1111/hsc.12268

DO - 10.1111/hsc.12268

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - e181-e190

JO - Health & Social Care in the Community

JF - Health & Social Care in the Community

SN - 0966-0410

IS - 6

ER -