UNASSIGNED: Analysis of co-production in mental health and specifically Recovery Colleges has not previously considered the impact on clinicians and their clinical practice. Co-production as a concept is open to multiple interpretations. Core components of co-produced work are as follows: a focus on assets, mutuality, peer support and the use of a facilitative approach. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Senior clinicians who have chosen to become Practitioner Trainers describe the experience of collaboration with service users in an educational rather than clinical context. Working together in this educational environment led to some shifts in their perceptions of professional power and authority, in some cases leading to personal disclosures about their mental health. This study suggests the mechanisms by which co-production may transform professional practice: being in an educational rather than clinical context, the experience of being supported, the challenge of negotiating multiple roles (including that of being a colleague to someone with mental health needs) and experiencing a gradual shift of role emphasis as co-trainer relationships develop. The practical challenge of holding a simultaneous role as clinician for and co-trainer with Peer Trainers has been articulated, with the caveat that mental health support may be a feature of collegiate as well as clinical roles. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Being a Practitioner Trainer could be a professionally transformative experience. Ground rules for how to support colleagues\' mental health needs should be established and refined during co-produced working. Negotiating personal disclosure and professional role identity must be explored further in both co-production research and practice.
UNASSIGNED: Introduction Co-production between service users and clinicians is a desirable element of recovery-oriented practice in mental health, but the effect of co-production on clinicians has not been explored thoroughly. Aim To explore the meaning of co-production for clinicians based on their experience of co-production in a Recovery College. Method Thematic analysis of eight semi-structured interviews with clinicians who have co-produced and co-delivered workshops with a Recovery College Peer Trainer. Results The \"meaning of co-production\" had four themes: definitions, power dynamics, negotiating roles and influence on practice. Clinicians\' experience of co-production meant a reassessment of their expert role and power. They said that this altered their clinical practice, particularly the language they used and the personal information they shared. Discussion Role negotiation between Practitioner and Peer Trainers is an iterative process, whereby clinicians may revise their perspectives on personal disclosure, professional identity and collegiate support. The Peer and Practitioner Trainer relationship is characterized by reciprocity and mutuality, and there is some evidence that Practitioner involvement in a co-produced activity has the potential to transform service user and provider relationships beyond the Recovery College setting. Implications for practice Engaging in co-produced educational workshops can alter clinicians\' perspectives on roles, power and clinical expertise. Findings from this case study must be tested against research on other Recovery Colleges.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, concerns about safety and fragmented community mental health care led to the development of the care programme approach in England and care and treatment planning in Wales. These systems require service users to have a care coordinator, written care plan and regular reviews of their care. Processes are required to be collaborative, recovery-focused and personalised but have rarely been researched. We aimed to obtain the views and experiences of stakeholders involved in community mental health care and identify factors that facilitate or act as barriers to personalised, collaborative, recovery-focused care.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-national comparative study employing a concurrent transformative mixed-methods approach with embedded case studies across six service provider sites in England and Wales. The study included a survey of views on recovery, empowerment and therapeutic relationships in service users (n = 448) and recovery in care coordinators (n = 201); embedded case studies involving interviews with service providers, service users and carers (n = 117) and a review of care plans (n = 33). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed within and across sites using inferential statistics, correlations and framework method.
RESULTS: Significant differences were found across sites for scores on therapeutic relationships. Variation within sites and participant groups was reported in experiences of care planning and understandings of recovery and personalisation. Care plans were described as administratively burdensome and were rarely consulted. Carers reported varying levels of involvement. Risk assessments were central to clinical concerns but were rarely discussed with service users. Service users valued therapeutic relationships with care coordinators and others, and saw these as central to recovery.
CONCLUSIONS: Administrative elements of care coordination reduce opportunities for recovery-focused and personalised work. There were few common understandings of recovery which may limit shared goals. Conversations on risk appeared to be neglected and assessments kept from service users. A reluctance to engage in dialogue about risk management may work against opportunities for positive risk-taking as part of recovery-focused work. Research to investigate innovative approaches to maximise staff contact time with service users and carers, shared decision-making in risk assessments, and training designed to enable personalised, recovery-focused care coordination is indicated.