scholarly journals Negotiating styles adopted by consultant psychiatrists when prescribing antipsychotics

2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Chaplin ◽  
Paul Lelliott ◽  
Alan Quirk ◽  
Clive Seale

A good therapeutic alliance between mental health professionals and patients with psychosis can enhance adherence to medication regimens and improve clinical outcome. This article explores how the therapeutic alliance might be developed with respect to decisions to prescribe antipsychotic medication. It does this by presenting the implications for practice that arise from a recent qualitative interview study with consultant psychiatrists. We consider strategies for strengthening the therapeutic alliance, occasions when it might be appropriate to suspend shared decision-making temporarily, techniques used to enable discussion of symptoms and side-effects, and how issues of adherence are uncovered and addressed. Psychiatrists already possess considerable skills in these areas. The dissemination of these to colleagues forms an important opportunity for CPD.

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Espen W. Haugom ◽  
Bjørn Stensrud ◽  
Gro Beston ◽  
Torleif Ruud ◽  
Anne S. Landheim

Abstract Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process whereby clinicians and patients work together to select treatments based on both the patient’s preferences and clinical evidence. Although patients with psychotic disorders want to participate more in decisions regarding their care, they have limited opportunities to do so because of various barriers. Knowing about health professionals’ experiences with SDM is important toward achieving successful implementation. The study aim was to describe and explore health professionals’ SDM experiences with patients with psychotic disorders. Methods Three focus group interviews were conducted, with a total of 18 health professionals who work at one of three Norwegian community mental health centres where patients with psychotic disorders are treated. We applied a descriptive and exploratory approach using qualitative content analysis. Results Health professionals primarily understand the SDM concept to mean giving patients information and presenting them with a choice between different antipsychotic medications. Among the barriers to SDM, they emphasized that patients with psychosis have a limited understanding of their health situation and that time is needed to build trust and alliances. Health professionals mainly understand patients with psychotic disorders as a group with limited abilities to make their own decisions. They also described the concept of SDM with little consideration of presenting different treatment options. Psychological or social interventions were often presented as complementary to antipsychotic medications, rather than as an alternative to them. Conclusion Health professionals’ understanding of SDM is inconsistent with the definition commonly used in the literature. They consider patients with psychotic disorders to have limited abilities to participate in decisions regarding their own treatment. These findings suggest that health professionals need more theoretical and practical training in SDM.


Author(s):  
Ana Babac ◽  
Verena von Friedrichs ◽  
Svenja Litzkendorf ◽  
Jan Zeidler ◽  
Kathrin Damm ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Many European countries have recently implemented national rare disease plans. Although the network is strengthening, especially on the macro and meso levels, patients still go a long way through healthcare systems, with many health professionals involved and scarce evidence to gather. Specifically, patient involvement in the form of shared decision-making can offer further potential to increase healthcare systems’ efficiency on a micro level. Therefore, we examine the implementation of the shared decision-making concept thus far, and explore whether efficiency potentials exist—which are particularly relevant within the rare disease field—and how they can be triggered. Methods Our empirical evidence comes from 101 interviews conducted from March to September 2014 in Germany; 55 patients, 13 family members, and 33 health professionals participated in a qualitative interview study. Transcripts were analyzed using a directed qualitative content analysis. Results The interviews indicate that the decision-making process is increasingly relevant in practice. In comparison, however, the shared decision-making agreement itself was rarely reported. A majority of interactions are dominated by individual, informed decision-making, followed by paternalistic approaches. The patient-physician relationship was characterized by a distorted trust-building process, which is affected by not only dependencies due to the diseases’ severity and chronic course, but an often-reported stigmatization of patients as stimulants. Moreover, participation was high due to a pronounced engagement of those affected, diminishing as patients’ strength vanish during their odyssey through health care systems. The particular roles of “expert patients” or “lay experts” in the rare disease field were revealed, with further potential in integrating the gathered information. Conclusions The study reveals the named efficiency potentials, which are unique for rare diseases and make the further integration of shared decision-making very attractive, facilitating diagnostics and disease management. It is noteworthy that integrating shared decision-making in the rare disease field does not only require strengthening the position of patients but also that of physicians. Efforts can be made to further integrate the concept within political frameworks to trigger the identified potential and assess the health-economic impact.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nafiso Ahmed ◽  
Sally Barlow ◽  
Lisa Reynolds ◽  
Nicholas Drey ◽  
Fareha Begum ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Risk assessment and risk management are fundamental processes in the delivery of safe and effective mental health care, yet studies have shown that service users are often not directly involved or are unaware that an assessment has taken place. Shared decision-making in mental health systems is supported by research and advocated in policy. This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42016050457) aimed to explore the perceived barriers and enablers to implementing shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management from mental health professionals’ perspectives. Methods PRISMA guidelines were followed in the conduct and reporting of this review. Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED and Internurse were systematically searched from inception to December 2019. Data were mapped directly into the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a psychological framework that includes 14 domains relevant to behaviour change. Thematic synthesis was used to identify potential barriers and enablers within each domain. Data were then matched to the three components of the COM-B model: Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation. Results Twenty studies met the eligibility criteria. The findings of this review indicate that shared decision-making is not a concept commonly used in mental health services when exploring processes of risk assessment and risk management. The key barriers identified were ‘power and best interest’ (social influences) and ‘my professional role and responsibility’ (social/professional role and identity). Key enablers were ‘therapeutic relationship’ (social influences) and ‘value collaboration’ (reinforcement). The salient barriers, enablers and linked TDF domains matched COM-B components ‘opportunity’ and ‘motivation’. Conclusion The review highlights the need for further empirical research to better understand current practice and mental health professionals’ experiences and attitudes towards shared decision-making in risk assessment and risk management.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205031211984146
Author(s):  
Nicolas Ndibu Muntu Keba Kebe ◽  
François Chiocchio ◽  
Jean-Marie Bamvita ◽  
Marie-Josée Fleury

Objectives: This study aims at identifying profiles of mental health professionals based on individual, interactional, structural and professional role characteristics related to interprofessional collaboration. Methods: Mental health professionals ( N = 315) working in primary health care and specialized mental health teams in four Quebec local service networks completed a self-administered questionnaire eliciting information on individual, interactional, structural and professional role characteristics. Results: Cluster analysis identified four profiles of mental health professionals. Those with the highest interprofessional collaboration scores comprised two profiles labeled “highly collaborative female professionals with fewer conflicts and more knowledge sharing and integration” and “highly collaborative male professionals with fewer conflicts, more participation in decision-making and mutual trust.” By contrast, the profile labeled “slightly collaborative professionals with high seniority, many conflicts and less knowledge integration and mutual trust” had the lowest interprofessional collaboration score. Another profile positioned between these groups was identified as “moderately collaborative female psychosocial professionals with less participation in decision-making.” Discussion and conclusion: Organizational support, participation in decision-making, knowledge sharing, knowledge integration, mutual trust, affective commitment toward the team, professional diversity and belief in the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration were features associated with profiles where perceived interprofessional collaboration was higher. These team qualities should be strongly encouraged by mental health managers for improving interprofessional collaboration. Training is also needed to promote improvement in interprofessional collaboration competencies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 296-307
Author(s):  
Danique W. Bos‐van den Hoek ◽  
Maureen Thodé ◽  
Irene P. Jongerden ◽  
Hanneke W. M. Van Laarhoven ◽  
Ellen M. A. Smets ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document