Balancing risk and recovery in mental health: an analysis of the way in which policy objectives around risk and recovery affect professional practice in England

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

This chapter explores two dominant themes within mental health care today - risk and recovery. Drawing on governmentality theory, the chapter focusses on professional practice in England where there has been an increase in law and policy focussed on risk management since the 1990s. It is argued that public concerns about the perceived risk that people with mental health problems are seen to pose to others has led to a range of ‘safety first’ policies. These policies have promoted the use of standardised risk tools and coercive treatments in the community. However, a focus on risk only tells half the story as the Government has also introduced policy objectives promoting notions of recovery. Whilst the concept of recovery is contested most definitions focus on the subjective experience of service users arguing that they should be able to define what recovery means to them. This poses an implicit challenge to mental health professionals seeking to frame and manage risk. The chapter charts the tensions between these two sets of policy objectives. It is argued that service users are only enabled to define their own recovery in cases where professionals do not view their choices as ‘risky’. The chapter concludes by examining the way in which mental health professionals currently assess and manage risk. The chapter demonstrates that professionals have resisted the use of standardised risk tools. However, policy directives instructing professionals to minimise risk continue to frame professional practice. Consequently, professionals are only able to facilitate service users’ recovery goals in limited circumstances.
LanguageEnglish
Title of host publicationMedicine, Risk, Discourse and Power
EditorsJ. M. Chamberlain
Place of PublicationLondon, U. K.
PublisherTaylor and Francis
Pages120-140
ISBN (Print)9780415502696
StatusPublished - 7 Dec 2015

Publication series

NameRoutledge Advances in Sociology

Fingerprint

mental health
health professionals
governmentality
risk management
health care
Law
community
experience

Keywords

  • risk
  • Risk assessment
  • mental health
  • recovery
  • governmentality

Cite this

Dixon, J. (2015). Balancing risk and recovery in mental health: an analysis of the way in which policy objectives around risk and recovery affect professional practice in England. In J. M. Chamberlain (Ed.), Medicine, Risk, Discourse and Power (pp. 120-140). (Routledge Advances in Sociology). London, U. K.: Taylor and Francis.

Balancing risk and recovery in mental health : an analysis of the way in which policy objectives around risk and recovery affect professional practice in England. / Dixon, Jeremy.

Medicine, Risk, Discourse and Power. ed. / J. M. Chamberlain. London, U. K. : Taylor and Francis, 2015. p. 120-140 (Routledge Advances in Sociology).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Dixon, J 2015, Balancing risk and recovery in mental health: an analysis of the way in which policy objectives around risk and recovery affect professional practice in England. in JM Chamberlain (ed.), Medicine, Risk, Discourse and Power. Routledge Advances in Sociology, Taylor and Francis, London, U. K., pp. 120-140.
Dixon J. Balancing risk and recovery in mental health: an analysis of the way in which policy objectives around risk and recovery affect professional practice in England. In Chamberlain JM, editor, Medicine, Risk, Discourse and Power. London, U. K.: Taylor and Francis. 2015. p. 120-140. (Routledge Advances in Sociology).
Dixon, Jeremy. / Balancing risk and recovery in mental health : an analysis of the way in which policy objectives around risk and recovery affect professional practice in England. Medicine, Risk, Discourse and Power. editor / J. M. Chamberlain. London, U. K. : Taylor and Francis, 2015. pp. 120-140 (Routledge Advances in Sociology).
@inbook{a8065dc7e39e48e890becf168b106fb3,
title = "Balancing risk and recovery in mental health: an analysis of the way in which policy objectives around risk and recovery affect professional practice in England",
abstract = "This chapter explores two dominant themes within mental health care today - risk and recovery. Drawing on governmentality theory, the chapter focusses on professional practice in England where there has been an increase in law and policy focussed on risk management since the 1990s. It is argued that public concerns about the perceived risk that people with mental health problems are seen to pose to others has led to a range of ‘safety first’ policies. These policies have promoted the use of standardised risk tools and coercive treatments in the community. However, a focus on risk only tells half the story as the Government has also introduced policy objectives promoting notions of recovery. Whilst the concept of recovery is contested most definitions focus on the subjective experience of service users arguing that they should be able to define what recovery means to them. This poses an implicit challenge to mental health professionals seeking to frame and manage risk. The chapter charts the tensions between these two sets of policy objectives. It is argued that service users are only enabled to define their own recovery in cases where professionals do not view their choices as ‘risky’. The chapter concludes by examining the way in which mental health professionals currently assess and manage risk. The chapter demonstrates that professionals have resisted the use of standardised risk tools. However, policy directives instructing professionals to minimise risk continue to frame professional practice. Consequently, professionals are only able to facilitate service users’ recovery goals in limited circumstances.",
keywords = "risk, Risk assessment, mental health, recovery, governmentality",
author = "Jeremy Dixon",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "7",
language = "English",
isbn = "9780415502696",
series = "Routledge Advances in Sociology",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis",
pages = "120--140",
editor = "Chamberlain, {J. M.}",
booktitle = "Medicine, Risk, Discourse and Power",
address = "UK United Kingdom",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Balancing risk and recovery in mental health

T2 - an analysis of the way in which policy objectives around risk and recovery affect professional practice in England

AU - Dixon, Jeremy

PY - 2015/12/7

Y1 - 2015/12/7

N2 - This chapter explores two dominant themes within mental health care today - risk and recovery. Drawing on governmentality theory, the chapter focusses on professional practice in England where there has been an increase in law and policy focussed on risk management since the 1990s. It is argued that public concerns about the perceived risk that people with mental health problems are seen to pose to others has led to a range of ‘safety first’ policies. These policies have promoted the use of standardised risk tools and coercive treatments in the community. However, a focus on risk only tells half the story as the Government has also introduced policy objectives promoting notions of recovery. Whilst the concept of recovery is contested most definitions focus on the subjective experience of service users arguing that they should be able to define what recovery means to them. This poses an implicit challenge to mental health professionals seeking to frame and manage risk. The chapter charts the tensions between these two sets of policy objectives. It is argued that service users are only enabled to define their own recovery in cases where professionals do not view their choices as ‘risky’. The chapter concludes by examining the way in which mental health professionals currently assess and manage risk. The chapter demonstrates that professionals have resisted the use of standardised risk tools. However, policy directives instructing professionals to minimise risk continue to frame professional practice. Consequently, professionals are only able to facilitate service users’ recovery goals in limited circumstances.

AB - This chapter explores two dominant themes within mental health care today - risk and recovery. Drawing on governmentality theory, the chapter focusses on professional practice in England where there has been an increase in law and policy focussed on risk management since the 1990s. It is argued that public concerns about the perceived risk that people with mental health problems are seen to pose to others has led to a range of ‘safety first’ policies. These policies have promoted the use of standardised risk tools and coercive treatments in the community. However, a focus on risk only tells half the story as the Government has also introduced policy objectives promoting notions of recovery. Whilst the concept of recovery is contested most definitions focus on the subjective experience of service users arguing that they should be able to define what recovery means to them. This poses an implicit challenge to mental health professionals seeking to frame and manage risk. The chapter charts the tensions between these two sets of policy objectives. It is argued that service users are only enabled to define their own recovery in cases where professionals do not view their choices as ‘risky’. The chapter concludes by examining the way in which mental health professionals currently assess and manage risk. The chapter demonstrates that professionals have resisted the use of standardised risk tools. However, policy directives instructing professionals to minimise risk continue to frame professional practice. Consequently, professionals are only able to facilitate service users’ recovery goals in limited circumstances.

KW - risk

KW - Risk assessment

KW - mental health

KW - recovery

KW - governmentality

UR - https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415502696

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780415502696

T3 - Routledge Advances in Sociology

SP - 120

EP - 140

BT - Medicine, Risk, Discourse and Power

A2 - Chamberlain, J. M.

PB - Taylor and Francis

CY - London, U. K.

ER -