Double helix of research and practice—developing a practice model for crisis resolution and home treatment through participatory action research

Over the last five years Crisis Resolution/Home Treatment (CR/HT) teams have been established in Norway. These teams provide an alternative to in-patient acute care services offering assessment as well as direct care. This paper addresses a method of examining the nature of practice models that are being developed in a CR/HT team incorporating the philosophy of open dialogue and the open lifeworld approach. The overall design of this research is action research applying a cooperative inquiry perspective. Multistage focus group interviews are used as a method for generating data, followed by phenomenological–hermeneutic approach in analyzing the data. Three themes were identified: (a) “keeping the dialogue open” referring to the emphasis of openness in dialogues and opening up for a variety of perspectives on what's going on; (b) “tolerance of uncertainty” referring to the need to accept and deal with uncertainty and multiplicity; and (c) “nurturing everyday life issues” referring to the emphasis on illustrating clinical situations in detail through remaking of stories. The on-going co-processes of research and practice was a double helix that links the happenings in the practice with the findings in the research revealing the knowledge in practice and further developing that knowledge

Generating dialogical practices in mental health : experiences from southern Norway, 1998-2008

Published version of an article in the journal: Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. Also available from the publisher at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0479-3In Norway and many other countries, political guidelines prescribe the development of mental health strategies with both a service user's perspective and a treatment system established by the local authority. The development of new strategies frequently involves challenges regarding procedures and treatment as well as a view of knowledge and humanity. Dialogical practices might provide a solution for these challenges not only because of its procedures but also due to its attitudes toward service users. The aim is to explore the implementation of three dialogical practice programs in Southern Norway from 1998 to 2008 and to critically analyze and discuss the authors' experiences during the implementation process. Three different programs of dialogical practices were initiated, established, and evaluated within the framework of participatory action research. Sustainable changes succeed individually and organizationally when all participants engage as partners during the implementation of new mental health practices. Generating dialogic practice requires shared understanding of the Open Dialogue Approach (ODA) and collaboration between professional networks and among the leaders. Developing a collaboration area that includes service users in all stages of the projects was one of the essential implementation factors. Other factors involved a common vision of ODA by the leaders and the actors, similar experiences, and a culture of collaboration. However, ODA challenged traditional medical therapy and encountered obstacles to collaboration. Perhaps the best way of surmounting those obstacles is to practice ODA itself during the implementation process

The Psychiatrist's Role in Implementing Open Dialogue Model of Care

The Open Dialogue approach is a family‐oriented early intervention model for mental health problems developed in the health district of Western Lapland, Finland. Since the 1990s the psychiatric service system in Western Lapland Health Care District has been organised according to Open Dialogue principles and applied to the treatment of any mental health concerns. The Open Dialogue approach considers the client and their family as active participants rather than as objects of treatment in its planning and implementation with a psychotherapeutic focus. In daily work, the responsibility for the treatment process is shared with the case‐specific team. The model of care requires a dialogical orientation from all staff members, psychiatrists included, to interact with the team and the client's network. In this article I describe the role of the psychiatrist in implementing an Open Dialogue model of care in psychiatric services leaning on my experiences of clinical work in the adolescent psychiatric team in Western Lapland.peerReviewe

Open Dialogue: Frequently Asked Questions

2019 Australian Association of Family Therapy Open Dialogue is an approach to working with people and their families experiencing psychosocial distress. Interest in Open Dialogue in Australia has been growing recently, raising questions about its adaption and implementation to local contexts. This article is an attempt to answer some of the frequently asked questions we have encountered in training and discussions about Open Dialogue. We attempt to provide responses to questions of how Open Dialogue is different to what is done already, how it fits with current approaches, how you know if you are doing it, whether it is passive or just about doing reflections, issues about including the social network, and concerns about the evidence base. This article aims to present a variety of viewpoints in relation to these questions and to hopefully further discussions on how Open Dialogue can be implemented and adapted to Australian health care and social care contexts