This study aimed to explore how mental health professionals and users perceive recovery-oriented intersectoral care when comparing mental health hospitals and community mental healthcare. Methodological design: Five audio-recorded focus group interviews of nurses, other health professionals and users were explored using manifest and latent content analysis. Ethical issues and approval: The study was designed in accordance with the ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration and Danish law. Each study participant in the two intersectoral sectors gave their informed consent after verbal and written information was provided. Findings: From the health professionals’ perspective, the main theme informed by subthemes and categories was formulated: ‘Recovery-oriented intersectoral care requires more coordination and desire for collaboration’. Two subthemes were subsequently formulated: ‘The users´ perspective of the centre’ and ‘Need for a common agenda and understanding of recovery-oriented intersectoral care’. From the users´ perspective, the main theme was formulated as: ‘Recovery-oriented intersectoral care in tension between medical- and holistically oriented care’. This theme was informed by two subthemes: ‘The users´ perspective is not in focus’ and ‘A trusting relationship and a holistic approach brings coherence’. Conclusions: This study reveals that health professionals want to work in a recovery-oriented manner in intersectoral care, but several challenges appear which make achieving this aim difficult. A common understanding of recovery and how it should be carried out in intersectoral care does not exist. Care decisions are primarily made paternalistically, where the users’ and relatives’ voices are ignored. In an attempt to create coherence across sectors, intersectoral network meetings have been established with health professionals from both sectors. However, the meetings are characterised by a lack of a clear purpose regarding the meeting structure and content, and users are only minimally involved. Our results can contribute to dealing with the challenges of incorporating recovery-oriented intersectoral care as an ideology in all psychiatric and municipal contexts and is, therefore, important for health professionals and users.

Background: Recovery-oriented intersectoral care is described as an aim in mental healthcare to create a holistic framework for planning that provides integration of treatment and rehabilitation. Existing studies show that nurses and other professionals do not take responsibility for the collaborative element of intersectoral care between mental health hospitals and community mental health services. The users of mental healthcare do not experience their patient journey as a cohesive process when they are discharged from a mental health hospital to community mental health services. Aim: The integrative review aims to examine the professionals’ experience with recovery-oriented intersectoral care between mental health hospitals and community mental health services. Design: Since the aim was to review user experience, we chose an integrative review as an obvious choice for design. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Findings: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The interactive inductive and deductive analysis generated four themes, which clarify the experience of professionals with recovery-oriented intersectoral care between the mental health hospitals and community mental health services, namely ‘structurally routine care’, ‘unequal balance of power between the sectors’, ‘bureaucracy as a barrier to recovery-oriented intersectoral care’ and ‘flexible mental healthcare approaches’. Conclusion: This review achieves specific knowledge of recovery-oriented intersectoral care. The studies included show that recovery-oriented intersectoral care is not clearly defined. It is challenging to transfer intersectoral care to an organisation with different structural and linguistic barriers.

Introduction: Recovery-oriented practices have become a means of promoting user recovery during hospitalisation, but we do not know much about the concrete means of practicing recovery-orientation for the most vulnerable users with serious mental difficulty and substance use. Aims: We investigated the concrete means of practicing recovery-orientation in care work and the elements, dimensions, outcomes, or steps of it in a special department of mental health centres. Method: Focus group interviews were conducted with 16 health professionals with experience with users with serious mental difficulty and substance use. Qualitative content analysis was undertaken. Results: The main theme was “holistic recovery on structural terms” based on two themes and four subthemes. The first theme was “recovery based on an individual approach” with subthemes “detective—find hope” and “how to do recovery-oriented practice”. The next theme was “recovery subject to structural framework” with subthemes “tension between different interests” and “symptoms as a barrier”. Conclusions: recovery-oriented practice is understood as an approach where health professionals emphasise forming relationships based on trust, being hopeful for the users’ future, spending time with users, and respecting users’ experiences and knowledge from their own life. There are cross-pressures between different interests. The desire to meet the users’ perspectives and respect these perspectives but at the same time live up to mental health centre purposes to stabilise the users’ health and achieve self-care.