263
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Negotiating the boundaries between clinical and non-clinical work within a supported housing program

&
Pages 217-235 | Published online: 19 Aug 2019
 

Abstract

Many contemporary mental health care programs rely on cross-agency models of service delivery. In these models, staff from different organizations provide care for the same clients, and this requires negotiation around role boundaries. In Australia, cross-agency programs have been developed to promote collaboration between government and not-for-profit community groups to meet the needs of those with serious mental health problems. Policy makers need to be aware of how staff in these roles conceptualize the boundaries and interconnection of their work with others to ensure that program goals are achieved. This study examined the division of labor that emerged between support workers (employed by the not-for-profit sector) and government health workers within a cross agency supported housing program for people with serious mental illness at risk of homelessness and self-neglect. Interviews were conducted with 40 government health workers and 37 staff from non-government agencies that shared clients in a supported housing program. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. While the division between clinical and non-clinical work was accepted and co-produced, tensions arose in defining the boundaries between them. These tensions resulted from poor communication on the part of both groups, perceived lack of clinical intervention by case managers, high caseloads of case managers, role ambiguity, and support workers feeling their input and feedback were not valued by government health workers. Divisions of labor in cross-agency programs need to be critically evaluated to assess whether they serve program goals. Tensions are inevitable when dividing the tasks involved in care of a single client between different organizations. Co-location of multidisciplinary teams that include health professionals, support workers and peer workers may lead to more effective recovery oriented care. The findings have implications for the future development of recovery oriented mental health services.

Disclosure statement

There are no conflicts of interest arising in this work.

Additional information

Funding

Data analyzed for this article were collected as part of an evaluation funded by the Queensland Government.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 53.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 571.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.