Recovery-Oriented Care Planning in Mental Healthcare Services: A Combined Concept Analysis and Scoping Review.
Natthapon Inta, Prapan Phetlerthirunkul, Jirada Kaewchuchuen and 2 others
PMID 42619323WHAT IT FOUND
Recovery-oriented mental health care planning was described as a flexible, person-led conversation, not a form.
It centred the person's strengths, goals and supports, with clinicians acting as facilitators rather than directors.
Key findings
01The database search yielded 10 695 articles and included 28 studies.
02Recovery-oriented care planning was described as a collaborative, person-centred, strengths-based and flexible process, not a standardised documentation task.
03The review found that care planning often remained shaped by biomedical priorities, audit and risk cultures, and that tools alone do not ensure recovery-oriented practice.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
No formal quality appraisal of the included studies was conducted, so risk of bias in the evidence base was not assessed. The included studies came mostly from high-income Western countries, so the findings may not transfer to non-Western or low- and middle-income settings. There was substantial conceptual overlap between recovery-oriented, person-centred and collaborative care planning, and terminology varied across studies. The review included review articles as well as primary studies, so some findings were secondary interpretations and evidence sources may overlap. Concept analysis is interpretive, so the identified attributes depend partly on the researchers' judgement. The review did not test whether recovery-oriented care planning improves patient outcomes.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that recovery-oriented care planning improves patient outcomes. This review searched 10 695 articles and included 28 studies, but it did not formally appraise study quality, and it found that tools alone do not ensure recovery-oriented practice.