A tale of two cultures: examining patient-centered care in a forensic mental health hospital

Figures & data

Table 1. Patient and provider ratings of recovery-oriented care.

RSA Scales (possible range)	Patients			Providers
	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	t	df	p
Life goals (1–5)	29	3.30	.72	27	3.22	.60	.48	54	.635
Involvement (1–5)	29	2.77	.93	26	2.44	.75	1.44	53	.157
Treatment options (1–5)	29	2.76	.85	24	3.22	.70	−2.15	51	.036
Choice (1–5)	29	3.11	.77	25	2.94	.81	.79	52	.432
Individualized services (1–5)	29	2.95	.89	26	3.28	.73	−1.48	53	.145
Inviting (1–5)	30	3.28	1.06	27	3.09	.91	.73	55	.471
Total (1–5)	29	3.06	.61	27	3.03	.60	.21	54	.831

Table 2. Strengths and gaps of recovery-oriented care.

	Patient perspectives	Provider perspectives
Strengths	1. Staff believe in patients’ recovery (n = 29, M = 3.93, SD = 1.10)	1. Staff are diverse (n = 27, M = 4.63, SD = .57)*
	2. Staff are diverse (n = 29, M = 3.86, SD = 1.33)*	2. Discharge criteria are discussed (n = 27, M = 3.96, SD = .76)
	3. Staff encourage hope and recovery (n = 30, M = 3.70, SD = 1.12)	3. Spiritual needs are discussed (n = 26, M = 3.85, SD = .97)
	4. Staff believe in symptom self-management (n = 29, M = 3.66, SD = 1.11)^†	4. Plans are made for life goals (n = 28, M = 3.61, SD = .99)
	5. Staff are welcoming (n = 30, M = 3.63, SD = 1.19)	5. Staff ask patients about their interests (n = 27, M = 3.59, SD = 1.31)
Gaps	1. Staff encourage positive risk-taking (n = 29, M = 2.14, SD = 1.13)	1. Patients are involved in staff training (n = 28, M = 1.61, SD = .96)*
	2. Patient role models/mentors are used (n = 29, M = 2.31, SD = 1.31)*	2. Patients can access their records (n = 24, M = 2.42, SD = 1.06)
	3. Staff help patients give back to the community (n = 29, M = 2.45, SD = 1.40)	3. Staff believe in symptom self-management (n = 28, M = 2.43, SD = 1.00)^†
	4. Sexual needs/interests discussed (n = 28, M = 2.46, SD = 1.26)*	4. Sexual needs/interests discussed (n = 25, M = 2.44, SD = 1.12)*
	5. Patients are involved in staff training (n = 29, M = 2.48, SD = 1.43)*	5. Patient role models/mentors are used (n = 25, M = 2.44, SD = 1.00)*
Notes: *Indicates commonalities between patients and staff; ^†Indicates differences between patients and staff.

Table 3. Patient and provider ratings of therapeutic milieu.

EssenCES scales (possible range)	Patients			Providers
	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	t	df	p
Patient cohesion (0–20)	29	9.86	3.85	28	8.32	4.03	1.47	55	.146
Experienced safety (0–20)	28	9.11	3.21	28	4.18	3.33	5.63	54	.000
Therapeutic hold (0–20)	29	10.86	4.03	28	11.46	4.19	−.55	55	.583
Total average (0–4)	29	2.01	.49	28	1.61	.51	2.99	55	.004

Table 4. Correlations between patient-rated measures.

	RSA	EssenCES	MHRM	MDES	SOLES	ISMI
a. Recovery-oriented care (RSA)	1
b. Therapeutic milieu (EssenCES)	.66**	1
c. Personal recovery (MHRM)	.28	.12	1
d. Empowerment (MDES)	.25	.00	.60*	1
e. Engagement (SOLES)	.55*	.36	.06	.05	1
f. Internalized stigma (ISMI)	−.18	.05	−.79**	−.61*	−.05	1
Notes: *Significant at a .01 level (2-tailed); **Significant at a .001 level (2-tailed).