Evaluation of a co‐delivered training package for community mental health professionals on service user‐ and carer‐involved care planning

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? There is consistent evidence that service users and carers feel marginalized in the process of mental health care planning. Mental health professionals have identified ongoing training needs in relation to involving service users and carers in care planning. There is limited research on the acceptability of training packages for mental health professionals which involve service users and carers as co‐facilitators. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE? A co‐produced and co‐delivered training package on service user‐ and carer‐involved care planning was acceptable to mental health professionals. Aspects of the training that were particularly valued were the co‐production model, small group discussion and the opportunity for reflective practice. The organizational context of care planning may need more consideration in future training models. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE? Mental health nurses using co‐production models of delivering training to other mental health professionals can be confident that such initiatives will be warmly welcomed, acceptable and engaging. On the basis of the results reported here, we encourage mental health nurses to use co‐production approaches more often. Further research will show how clinically effective this training is in improving outcomes for service users and carers. ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence for the acceptability of training for mental health professionals on service user‐ and carer‐involved care planning. AIM: To investigate the acceptability of a co‐delivered, two‐day training intervention on service user‐ and carer‐involved care planning. METHODS: Community mental health professionals were invited to complete the Training Acceptability Rating Scale post‐training. Responses to the quantitative items were summarized using descriptive statistics (Miles, 2013), and qualitative responses were coded using content analysis (Weber, 1990). RESULTS: Of 350 trainees, 310 completed the questionnaire. The trainees rated the training favourably (median overall TARS scores = 56/63; median ‘acceptability’ score = 34/36; median ‘perceived impact’ score = 22/27). There were six qualitative themes: the value of the co‐production model; time to reflect on practice; delivery preferences; comprehensiveness of content; need to consider organizational context; and emotional response. DISCUSSION: The training was found to be acceptable and comprehensive with participants valuing the co‐production model. Individual differences were apparent in terms of delivery preferences and emotional reactions. There may be a need to further address the organizational context of care planning in future training. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Mental health nurses should use co‐production models of continuing professional development training that involve service users and carers as co‐facilitators.