Environments that promote recovery in acute care mental health: nursing perspectives explored through interpretative description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A significant change in mental health care has involved the need to implement recovery-oriented practices and services. However, recovery-oriented care has been poorly defined within acute care mental health settings. OBJECTIVES: The central aims of the study were to increase knowledge about what constitutes a recovery-oriented environment within contemporary acute care units and to inform recovery-oriented nursing practice. METHODS: Interpretative description was applied to answer the question: What strategies and resources do nurses identify as being most conducive to fostering a recovery-oriented environment in acute care mental health units? Purposive sampling was used to recruit 11 nurses from 6 acute care units. The inclusion criteria included a minimum of 1-year patients and holding active nursing registration. Nursing experience in community-based or chronic care settings and with children and adolescents were exclusion criteria. Six nurses also participated in a focus group. RESULTS: Key aspects of a recovery-oriented acute care environment included understanding the needs of individual patients along with the dynamics of the healthcare team. Nurses had important roles in promoting recovery-oriented environments and reported a need for increased resources to move beyond the bio-medical model and align practice with personal recovery. CONCLUSION: A recovery-oriented environment was described as a safe, peaceful and holistic environment with adequate space to balance needs for privacy, interaction and activity. This environment is fostered through respectful communication and healthy relationships among team members, patients, family and formal supports. These nurses had the knowledge, skill and desire to promote recovery-oriented environments, yet resources such as leisure activities and group therapy were required to promote personal recovery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".