Purpose – The perspectives of frontline clinical staff working with individuals in later life within an inpatient mental health setting, of their role in recovery, have not yet been explored. The purpose of this paper is to understand what recovery means within an inpatient mental health setting for older adults. The authors address clear implications for clinical practice. Design/methodology/approach – Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 multidisciplinary participants across two specialist older adult recovery units at an independent hospital in the UK. Thematic analysis was applied to the transcripts. Findings – Three main themes were identified: participants identified their normative task as the promotion of “moving on” (clinical recovery) and their existential task as personal recovery. The context in which recovery happens was highlighted as the third theme. These represented competing workplace goals of clinical and personal recovery. This highlights the need to give permission to personal recovery as the process that enables mental health recovery in older adults. Originality/value – Staff working in a inpatient mental health service for older adults discussed the meaning of recovery and their role in enabling recovery. This has implications for sustainable clinical practice in this setting. Recovery-orientated practice in this setting is required but the detail is not yet understood.

Background: Although auditing is embedded into clinical culture, data collection tends to be retrospective, requires expertise, and is time consuming. Local Problem: Clinical audit data are needed in real time to manage patient safety issues. Methods: An iterative approach was undertaken to develop the electronic audit tool with a cross-sectional survey used for evaluation. Interventions: The Combined Bedside and Risk Assessment (CoBRA) audit tool captures patient safety risk and compliance such as falls, pressure injuries, and infections. Results: More than 17 956 safety audits were collected on randomly selected inpatients. Monthly audits completion average is 96% (n = 614). Patient safety risk mitigation is available in real time. Stakeholders stated that the CoBRA tool was useful in educating patients on risks (n = 141; 78.3%), improved patient care (n = 120; 67.4%), and prompted staff to modify patient care based on CoBRA findings (n = 98; 54%). Conclusions: The electronic CoBRA process facilitates patient safety risk mitigation and data transparency.

No abstract