The use of Open Dialogue in Trauma Informed Care services for mental health consumers and their family networks: A scoping review

Introduction: A large proportion of people who access mental health services have a lived experienced of trauma and are more likely to have a history of complex trauma. Open Dialogue and Trauma Informed Care practices identify previous trauma as a factor related to later psychosis. This scoping review has identified similarities and contrasts in how an Open Dialogue and Trauma Informed Care approach have been combined to complement one another for clinical work with people presenting with psychosis and previous trauma. Aim: We aimed to answer the following research question in this scoping review: What is known of the combined use of Open Dialogue and Trauma Informed Care practice when working with consumers and their family networks? As such, the purpose of this paper was to explore the application to practice and identify if any training existed and been evaluated. Method: This scoping review was based on the Arksey and O'Malley's framework. A comprehensive search was performed across five electronic databases. Grey literature was also searched through Psyche Info and Google Scholar for books, Dissertation and Theses, alongside hand searching of the reference of the studies. Articles searched was from January 2013 to January 2023. Results: Five distinct themes were identified from the literature: (1) Linking open dialogue with trauma, (2) Response to treatment, (3) Empowerment and information sharing, (4) Interpretation by clinical services, (5) Staff training outcomes. Discussion: Some tentative recommendations for practice recognised the individuals' unique story and perspective, suggested that trauma is an important concept to assess. Services practising as Trauma Informed Services that have incorporated an Open Dialogue approach have mixed experiences. The use of Open Dialogue may have some benefits for family work and exploring consumer narratives while building a network of support. However, consumers identified similar frustrations with service delivery as with the family therapy literature. For example, it was difficult to bring family members together and difficult to discuss previous traumatic events in front of family. People experiencing training in Open Dialogue reported it taking a slow pace and not what they were familiar with. Implications for Practice: Open Dialogue can facilitate engagement of consumers and their family networks and greater recognition of the peer workforce to promote collaboration in therapy is needed. Future research should also focus on evaluating the effectiveness of such services and comparing their outcomes across regions.