McKenna, Oakes, Fourniotis, Toomey, and Furness' (2016) exploration of recovery-oriented mental health practice in a community care unit (CCU) located in the state of Victoria, Australia, is a valuable and timely contribution to an understudied area of research. The imperative for research to understand and evaluate these services is evident given their changing function over time (Parker, Dark, Newman, Korman, Meurk, et al., 2016; Saraf & Newton, 2017). Australia's CCUs were initially developed to support the transition of institutionalized patients with severe mental illness to a supported residential setting in the community. Over time, these services have come to focus on supporting consumers without a history of long-term institutional care, and incremental shifts in model of service have followed progressive changes to the mental health policy and planning framework in Australia (Parker, Dark, Vilic, et al., 2016).

McKenna et al. (2016) indicate that there is a "total absence of knowledge of recovery-oriented mental health practice" within these services (p. 167). We wish to highlight that, although an understudied area of research, the literature and evidence base for this model of service are developing (Parker, Dark, Newman, Korman, Meurk, et al., 2016; Parker, Dark, Newman, Korman, Rasmussen, et al., 2016; Parker, Dark, Vilic, et al., 2016; Saraf & Newton, 2016), enhancing the understanding of practice within this setting (Parker, Dark, Newman, Korman, Rasmussen, et al., 2016). This literature includes examination of novel adaptations of processes to facilitate recovery-oriented practice through partnership with nongovernment organizations and the increased availability of peer support workers (Parker, Dark, Vilic, et al., 2016; Saraf & Newton, 2016) as well as a longitudinal mixed methods evaluation of CCUs in the state of Queensland, Australia (Parker, Dark, Newman, Korman, Meurk, et al., 2016).

We obtained congruent results to those reported by McKenna et al. (2016) from our pragmatic grounded theory analysis of the staff experience of working within a CCU in another Australian state (Parker, Dark, Newman, Korman, Rasmussen, et al., 2016). However, a more complex relationship between rehabilitation and recovery emerged in our analysis. Staff in our study reported that recovery is central to the practice of rehabilitation; however, they differed in their views as to the precise nature of this relationship. Three kinds of relationship between recovery and rehabilitation were identified in staff discourses: recovery as an outcome of rehabilitation, consumers adopting a recovery mindset enhances rehabilitation outcomes, and recovery is a process owned by consumers but facilitated by rehabilitation practice. Analysis of consumer experiences of CCUs is underway and highlights both similarities and differences to the views of staff.

McKenna et al. (2016) emphasize that an initial focus in CCUs on psychosocial rehabilitation generates staff confusion about recovery-oriented practice (McKenna et al., 2016). The authors appear to assert that psychosocial rehabilitation is antithetical to modern concepts of recovery-oriented care that prioritize the concept of personal recovery over clinical recovery. Such an assertion seems out of keeping with the contemporary science and philosophy of rehabilitation practice in Australia (King, Lloyd, Meehan, Deane & Kavanagh, 2012) and internationally (Corrigan, 2016; Killaspy, 2014). Contemporary approaches to psychosocial rehabilitation emphasize both the "process" of recovery belonging to the individual and the relevant evidence-based rehabilitation support to facilitating consumers achieving their own goals.

The use of consumer-led interviewing to redress inherent power imbalances between researcher and participant that pervade the literature is a key strength of McKenna et al.'s (2016) research. However, it is possible that combining staff and consumer views in analysis may have resulted in staff views overshadowing consumer viewpoints. The consumer voice does not emerge strongly in this exploratory work. Only 4 of the 27 illustrative extracts in supporting the emergent themes were from consumer participants, who reflected only 7 of the 21 participants. This leads us to wonder how congruent staff and consumer views are and the extent to which this article reflects a staff rather than consumer model of recovery.

McKenna et al. (2016) have made a valuable contribution to an understudied area, which will allow for future comparative qualitative analyses across these services. This bodes well for the development of a vibrant and innovative mixed methods research agenda in community-based residential rehabilitation services in the future.

References