BackgroundAssertive outreach has been established to care for ‘difficult to engage’ patients, yet little is known about how patients experience their disengagement with mainstream services and later engagement with outreach teams.AimsTo explore the views of disengagement and engagement held by patients of assertive outreach teams.MethodIn-depth interviews were conducted with 40 purposefully selected patients and analysed using components of both thematic analysis and grounded theory.ResultsPatients reported a desire to be independent, a poor therapeutic relationship and a loss of control due to medication effects as most important for disengagement. Time and commitment of staff, social support and engagement without a focus on medication, and a partnership model of the therapeutic relationship were most relevant for engagement.ConclusionsThe findings underline the importance of a comprehensive care model, committed staff with sufficient time, and a focus on relationship issues in dealing with ‘ifficultto engage'patients.

No abstract

Assertive community treatment (ACT) is a widely propagated team approach to community mental health care that 'assertively' engages a subgroup of individuals with severe mental illness who continuously disengage from mental health services. It involves a number of interested parties--including clients, carers, clinicians and managers. Each operates according to perceived ethical principles related to their values, mores and principles. ACT condenses a dilemma that is common in psychiatry. ACT proffers social control whilst simultaneously holding therapeutic aspiration. The clients' perspective of this dilemma was studied in interviews with 12 clients using the 'grounded theory' approach. Results suggest that clients' disengagement is as much a historical and cultural phenomenon as a result of lack of insight. Many clients had experienced rejection of early help-seeking behaviour and all had been subject to coercive interventions. These coercive interventions were experienced as an attack on identity. All felt that their voice had not been listened to in previous interactions with psychiatric services. Consequentially the clients had an increased level of arousal around issues of power, which needs to be incorporated when examining the ethics of community psychiatry. Traditional notions of the difference between persuasion and coercion--for example--may need to be adapted for this client group. Results are compared with the provider perspective. We conclude that the perspectives differ on two key dimensions. Such an empirical approach to examining psychiatric ethics may ensure that we incorporate the subjectivities of various interested parties in the clinical decision-making process.

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link Jay WattsUniversity of London, UK AbstractOur objective was to explore how prospective altruistic kidney donors construct their decision to donate. Using a qualitative design and biographical-narrative semistructured interviews, we aimed to produce text for analysis on two levels: the social implications for subjectivity and practice and a tentative psychodynamic explanation of the participants' psychological investment in the discourses they used. A total of six prospective altruistic kidney donors were interviewed. A psychosocial approach to the analysis was taken. In-depth discourse analysis integrated Foucauldian with psychodiscursive approaches and psychodynamic theory was applied to sections of text in which participants seemed to have particular emotional investment. Analysis generated three major discursive themes: other-oriented, rational and self-oriented discourses. The desire to donate was experienced as compelling by participants. Participants used discourses to position themselves as concerned with the needs of the recipient, to resist questioning and criticism, and to manage difficult feelings around mortality. Participants tended to reject personal motivations for altruistic donation, positioning relatives' disapproval as selfish and illogical. These results suggest that the term 'altruistic' for living non-directed organ donation constrains available discourses, severely limiting what can be said, felt, thought and done by donors, clinicians and the public. A more useful approach would acknowledge potential psychological motives and gains for the donor.

No abstract