Evaluation of a Peer-Run Hospital Diversion Program: A Descriptive Study

Abstract

Few studies have explored how peer-run hospital diversion services can contribute to consumers' perceptions of care and recovery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a peer-run hospital diversion program (PRHDP) on mental health consumers' recovery; to compare the consumers' experience of environment, services, and staff with a non-peer-run acute inpatient program (NPRIP); to understand the clients' beliefs about PRHDP; and to assess their evaluation of services received in both settings. A purposive sample of 39 mental health consumers rated the quality and type of services they received in a PRHDP versus a NPRIP, and their beliefs about the impact of these services on their recovery and life satisfaction. The Quality of Life Index and items developed by focus groups were used. The results indicate that services at the PRHDP were more client-centered and less restrictive than at NPRIPs. PRHDP staff were viewed as more respectful. Respondents reported feeling decreased stigma due to mental illness after receiving services from the PRHDP, as well as good life satisfaction and social involvement levels. PRHDPs that provide case management and treatment planning, along with peer support, should be considered as an alternative to non-peer-run programs.

Keywords:

• Consumer
• Consumer-run
• Mental health
• Peer support
• Services

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Thomas E. Templeton, research assistant for the Institute for Community Research and Training (ICRT) at the College of Saint Rose, for his contributions to this article.