Page 33 - text

Four key approaches to change SeCtion one
The university used the two days to develop a Theory of Change for the recovery hub. In Day 1 the findings from the data collection were used to agree the ‘context’ and ‘key problems’ that the hub would address and the ‘resources’ that were available to it. Initially the discussion on resources was limited to those funded by the local authority and the NHS. In response to this an informal presentation was given by the university on the evidence of what supports people in their recovery. This presentation this highlighted the importance of a people’s social networks and generic community resources to their recovery. This led to a review of the ‘resources’ as event participants realised that resources were more than just those provided or funded by the local authority and NHS.
The objectives of the national mental health strategy were agreed as an overall vision for the recovery hub. Two of these objectives were seen as important but being addressed to a satisfactory level and could therefore be incrementally improved (‘positive experience’ and ‘harm’) and two were seen as being a broader issues that would require coordination by a more strategic group than the recover hub which had representation from a wider range of community agencies (‘stigma’ and ‘discrimination’). It was therefore agreed that the priority change objectives for by the hub should be ‘recovery’ and ‘good physical health’.
In the second event the broad objectives of ‘recovery’ and ‘good physical health’ were developed into local outcomes, i.e. what was hoped to be achieved by the changes. Participants were asked to write their suggestions for these outcomes onto sticky notes. Suggestions were collated by the university into themes, and participants asked to vote on which of these they wanted to prioritise. This led to three outcomes being developed for ‘recovery’ and three outcomes for ‘good physical health’. Participants were then divided into groups to think about potential ‘high level interventions’ (i.e. what would be done differently) and what the corresponding ‘outputs’ and ‘short term outcomes’ would be. The groups then provided peer challenge to each other and this led to a refined Theory of Change for each outcome (Table C1).
30