Collaborative research exploring mental health service user perspectives on acute inpatient occupational therapy.

Interprofessional learning and the development of teamworking skills are recognised as essential for patient care and are also a government priority for undergraduate education. Sixteen occupational therapy students worked on an interprofessional training ward as part of their practice placement and three of them participated in an evaluation using the nominal group technique. Despite this small number, the evaluation identifies the value of this learning experience in giving the students an opportunity to appreciate the importance of interpersonal skills; to learn about other team members' roles; and to experience the challenges of working on a busy rehabilitation ward for older people.

Understanding real world experiences and issues is a priority for research funders, yet there are challenges in directly engaging with people for evaluation and investigation of the professional services they receive. Much professional work takes place within institutional restrictions, arising from legislation, policy and local practices. Collaborative research is therefore complex but relevant for improving services. This research programme started in 2002 with focus group research, led by occupational therapists based in a local NHS trust and a university, followed by 8 further projects including a Photovoice project. This programme and our perspectives from reflections suggest we do not always know who we are, what we want or who cares about research outcomes, but it is important to embrace the potential of activism, wherever they are based.

Aims: This research explored experiences of an in-patient mental health rehabilitation unit. This setting has a place in current services but has not been the focus for recent developments. Perspectives were sought from people who had been discharged more than a year previously. Method: A qualitative method was used. Ten service users were interviewed individually, using photographs of the unit to elicit responses. The data were subject to detailed analysis. Findings: Of the three overarching themes, the first, ‘past’, suggested that a need for the unit arose from complex and severe problems, often for people in transition. The experience of the unit, the second theme, ‘present’, considered four aspects; routine, looking after yourself, time and space, and choice, based on the staff approach. The third theme, ‘future’, identified that following time at the unit, participants had restored, reconstructed, and developed routines, identities, and roles. Conclusions: Overall, these themes suggested the diversity of experiences and indicated the importance of recovery-oriented practice. Most participants valued their time in the unit and could see the benefits for others. Staff skills in enabling individual rehabilitation and recovery are critical, to ensure individual goals are identified and remain the focus of interventions.

No abstract