Dataset Information

Vocational rehabilitation via social firms: a qualitative investigation of the views and experiences of employees with mental health problems, social firm managers and clinicians

ABSTRACT:

Background

Employment within social firms in the UK is under-developed and under-researched, but a potentially beneficial route to vocational rehabilitation for people with mental health problems. This study explores the views and experiences of employees with mental ill-health, managers of social firms and mental health clinicians, in order to understand the potential value of social firms for the vocational rehabilitation, employment and well-being of people with mental health problems.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 employees with mental health problems in 11 social firms in England. A focus group and individual interviews were conducted with 12 managers of social firms. Two focus groups were held with 16 mental health clinicians. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Most employees expressed very positive views about working in a social firm. In responses from both employees and social firm managers, an overarching theme regarding the supportive ethos of social firms encompassed several related features: openness about mental health issues; peer, team and management support; flexibility; and support to progress and develop skills over time. Managers identified benefits of employing people with mental health problems who were sufficiently recovered. Knowledge of social firms within clinician focus groups was very limited, although clinicians thought they could be a welcome additional vocational resource.

Conclusions

High levels of job satisfaction among social firm employees may be explained by the supportive ethos of these working environments. Social firms have potential to be a helpful addition to the range of vocational pathways available for people with mental ill-health. Further mixed methods investigations of experiences and outcomes in order to understand who engages with and benefits from this form of vocational rehabilitation would be valuable in informing decisions about scaling up the model.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-021-03577-5.

SUBMITTER: Morant N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8590221 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEmployment is associated with better quality of life and wellbeing in people with mental illness. Unemployment is associated with greater levels of psychological illness and is viewed as a core part of the social exclusion faced by people with mental illness. Social Firms offer paid employment to people with mental illness but are under-investigated in the UK. The aims of this phase of the Social Firms A Route to Recovery (SoFARR) project were to describe the availability and spread of Social Firms across the UK, to outline the range of opportunities Social Firms offer people with severe mental illness and to understand the extent to which they are employed within these firms.MethodA UK national survey of Social Firms, other social enterprises and supported businesses was completed to understand the extent to which they provide paid employment for the mentally ill. A study-specific questionnaire was developed. It covered two broad areas asking employers about the nature of the Social Firm itself and about the employees with mental illness working there.ResultsWe obtained returns from 76 Social Firms and social enterprises / supported businesses employing 692 people with mental illness. Forty per cent of Social Firms were in the south of England, 24% in the North and the Midlands, 18% in Scotland and 18% in Wales. Other social enterprises/supported businesses were similarly distributed. Trading activities were confined mainly to manufacturing, service industry, recycling, horticulture and catering. The number of employees with mental illness working in Social Firms and other social enterprises/supported businesses was small (median of 3 and 6.5 respectively). Over 50% employed people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, though the greatest proportion of employees with mental illness had depression or anxiety. Over two thirds of Social Firms liaised with mental health services and over a quarter received funding from the NHS or a mental health charity. Most workers with mental illness in Social Firms had been employed for over 2 years.ConclusionsSocial Firms have significant potential to be a viable addition to Individual Placement and Support (IPS), supporting recovery orientated services for people with the full range of mental disorders. They are currently an underdeveloped sector in the UK.

Project description:BackgroundCancer care is liable to medication errors due to the complex nature of cancer treatment, the common presence of comorbidities and the involvement of a number of clinicians in cancer care. While the frequency of medication errors in cancer care has been reported, little is known about their causal factors and effective prevention strategies. With a unique insight into the main safety issues in cancer treatment, frontline staff can help close this gap. In this study, we aimed to identify medication safety priorities in cancer patient care according to clinicians in North West London using PRIORITIZE, a novel priority-setting approach.MethodsThe project steering group determined the scope, the context and the criteria for prioritization. We then invited North West London cancer care clinicians to identify and prioritize main causes for, and solutions to, medication errors in cancer care. Forty cancer care providers submitted their suggestions which were thematically synthesized into a composite list of 20 distinct problems and 22 solutions. A group of 26 clinicians from the initial cohort ranked the composite list of suggestions using predetermined criteria.ResultsThe top ranked problems focused on patients' poor understanding of treatments due to language or education difficulties, clinicians' insufficient attention to patients' psychological distress, and inadequate information sharing among health care providers. The top ranked solutions were provision of guidance to patients and their carers on what to do when unwell, pre-chemotherapy work-up for all patients and better staff training. Overall, clinicians considered improved communication between health care providers, quality assurance procedures (during prescription and monitoring stages) and patient education as key strategies for improving cancer medication safety. Prescribing stage was identified as the most vulnerable to medication safety threats. The highest ranked suggestions received the strongest agreement among the clinicians.ConclusionsClinician-identified priorities for reducing medication errors in cancer care addressed various aspects of cancer treatment. Our findings open up an opportunity to assess the congruence between health care professional suggestions, currently implemented patient safety policies and evidence base.

Project description:BackgroundAccess to rehabilitation to prevent disability and optimise function is recommended for patients with cancer, including following cancer diagnosis. Models to integrate rehabilitation within oncology services as cancer treatment commences are required, but must be informed by those they are intended to support. We aimed to identify views of patients, carers and clinicians to develop and refine a rehabilitation model to be tested in a feasibility trial for people newly diagnosed with lung cancer or mesothelioma.MethodsWe conducted a focus group study with people affected by lung cancer or mesothelioma, their carers and clinicians providing their care to identify priorities for rehabilitation in this period. We sought views on core intervention components, processes and outcomes and integration with oncology services. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsFifteen clinicians (oncologists, nurse specialists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists), nine patients and five carers participated. A proposed outline rehabilitation model was perceived as highly relevant for this population. Participants recommended prompt and brief rehabilitation input, delivered whilst people attend for hospital appointments or at home to maximise accessibility and acceptability. Participants recognised variation in need and all prioritised tailored support for symptom self-management, daily activities and the involvement of carers. Clinicians also prioritised achieving fitness for oncology treatment. Patients and carers prioritised a sensitive manner of approach, positivity and giving hope for the future. Participant's recommendations for outcome measurement related to confidence in usual daily activities, symptom control and oncology treatment completion rates over objective measures of cardiorespiratory fitness.ConclusionThe importance of providing tailored rehabilitation around the time of diagnosis for people with lung cancer or mesothelioma was affirmed by all participants. The refined model of rehabilitation recommended for testing in a feasibility trial is flexible, tailored and short-term. It aims to support people to self-manage symptoms, tolerate cancer treatments and to remain active and independent in daily life. It is delivered alongside scheduled hospital appointments or at home by an expert practitioner sensitive to the psycho-social sequelae that follow a diagnosis of thoracic cancer.