Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Back to table of contents
ARTICLESFull Access

Addressing Challenges in Residential Facilities: Promoting Human Rights and Recovery While Pursuing Functional Autonomy

Published Online:8 Nov 2023https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.prcp.20230034

Abstract

Objective

Italian residential facilities (RFs) aim to promote human rights and recovery for individuals with severe mental disorders. Italian RFs can be distinguished into five main types: high‐intensity rehabilitation (RF1), medium‐intensity rehabilitation (RF2), medium‐level support (RF3.1), high‐level support (RF3.2), low‐level support (RF3.3). This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of Italian RFs in achieving functional autonomy while upholding human rights and recovery.

Methods

Data on socio‐demographics, clinical information, patient and staff assessments of functional autonomy, types of interventions, and RF performance in various domains were collected in a pilot study with a cross‐sectional design. Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted.

Results

Twelve RFs and 113 patients participated, with varying proportions in each RF type. RF1 patients were the oldest (p < 0.001) with the lowest functional autonomy (p < 0.001), while RF2 patients were the youngest (p < 0.001) with the lowest hospitalization rate (p < 0.001). RF3.1 patients had the highest employment rate (p = 0.024), while RF3.2 had the lowest employment rate (p = 0.024) and the longest service contact (p < 0.001). RF3.3 users had the highest functional autonomy (p < 0.001). The highest functional autonomy was in self‐care which received the highest focus in objectives and interventions. Patients rated their functional autonomy higher than professionals (p < 0.001). RFs excelled in the “human rights” and “social interface” domains but performed poorly in “recovery‐based practice,” with RF1 having the lowest performance and RF3.3 the highest.

Conclusions

This pilot study suggests that Italian RFs generally aligne with their mission and human rights principles, but personalizing interventions and implementing recovery‐oriented practices face challenges.