1. impactEUTOPA-IP, Amsterdam conference16.09.2010 On the nature of peer support Summary and conclusions EUTOPA-IP, Amsterdam conference

2. impactEUTOPA-IP, Amsterdam conference16.09.2010 Main conclusions Participants agree on the value of key tasks peer support as described in the Dutch uniformed services guidelines: –supportive context (practical, emphatic, social) –detection potential risks for worker and organisation –monitoring (question: event driven or permanent) –if necessary, advise referral to professional mental health care providers In addition to this model of organised proactive detection, support and referral advise: ‘if the goal is to find access to care providers it is okay (apart from providing a supportive context) if the role of peer supporters ends here’

3. impactEUTOPA-IP, Amsterdam conference16.09.2010 Main conclusions An unanswered question is how to ensure treatment adherence after referral (i.e. OSISS) Broader models exist, covering treatment and/or recovery Choice for model and content depends on preferred: –primary starting points: what are the initial peer support goals/problems (e.g. because we find problems x, we must do something for our veterans) –conceptual vantage point: »pathogenic and/or salutogenic strategy »theories how individuals are affected and recover from events/circumstances

4. impactEUTOPA-IP, Amsterdam conference16.09.2010 Issues identified In relation to competencies: –Question: are non-professional peer supporters capable of detection and monitoring? –No clinical diagnosis is to be made by peer supporter In relation to timing of actions: –Timing depends on peer support goal/task –Event-driven or permanent monitoring (accumulation effects) e.g. periodic check-up are both important –In Dutch guidelines limited emphasis on accumulation effects In relation to management: –Ensure the peer support model will not primarily become a management instrument instead of a support tool –There must be agreement between management and peer supporter on referral