scholarly journals Shared decision making, aggression, and coercion in inpatients with schizophrenia

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Hamann ◽  
Miriam John ◽  
Fabian Holzhüter ◽  
Spyridon Siafis ◽  
Peter Brieger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Study Phase ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Inpatient Stay ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Abstract Background The present study aimed at answering three research questions: (a) Does shared decision making (SDM) yield similar effects for patients with involuntary admission or incidents of aggression compared to patients with voluntary admission or without incidents of aggression? (b) Does SDM reduce the number of patients with incidents of aggression and the use of coercive measures? (c) Does the use of coercion have a negative impact on patients’ perceived involvement in decision making? Methods We used data from the cluster-randomized SDM-PLUS trial in which patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in 12 acute psychiatric wards of 4 German psychiatric hospitals either received an SDM-intervention or treatment as usual. In addition, data on aggression and coercive measures were retrospectively obtained from patients’ records. Results The analysis included n = 305 inpatients. Patient aggression as well as coercive measures mostly took place in the first days of the inpatient stay and were seldom during the study phase of the SDM-PLUS trial. Patients who had been admitted involuntarily or showed incidents of aggression profited similarly from the intervention with regard to perceived involvement, adherence, and treatment satisfaction compared to patients admitted voluntarily or without incidents of aggression. The intervention showed no effect on patient aggression and coercive measures. Having previously experienced coercive measures did not predict patients’ rating of perceived involvement. Conclusion Further research should focus on SDM-interventions taking place in the very first days of inpatients treatment and potential beneficial long effects of participatory approaches that may not be measurable during the current inpatient stay.

scholarly journals Implementing shared decision-making on acute psychiatric wards: a cluster-randomized trial with inpatients suffering from schizophrenia (SDM-PLUS)

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Hamann ◽  
F. Holzhüter ◽  
S. Blakaj ◽  
S. Becher ◽  
B. Haller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Acute Psychiatric Wards ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Abstract Aims Although shared decision-making (SDM) has the potential to improve health outcomes, psychiatrists often exclude patients with more severe mental illnesses or more acute conditions from participation in treatment decisions. This study examines whether SDM is facilitated by an approach which is specifically adapted to the needs of acutely ill patients (SDM-PLUS). Methods The study is a multi-centre, cluster-randomised, non-blinded, controlled trial of SDM-PLUS in 12 acute psychiatric wards of five psychiatric hospitals addressing inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. All patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were consecutively recruited for the trial at the time of their admission to the ward. Treatment teams of intervention wards were trained in the SDM-PLUS approach through participation in two half-day workshops. Patients on intervention wards received group training in SDM. Staff (and patients) of the control wards acted under ‘treatment as usual’ conditions. The primary outcome parameter was the patients' perceived involvement in decision-making at 3 weeks after study enrolment, analysed using a random-effects linear regression model. Results In total, 161 participants each were recruited in the intervention and control group. SDM-PLUS led to higher perceived involvement in decision-making (primary outcome, analysed patients n = 257, mean group difference 16.5, 95% CI 9.0–24.0, p = 0.002, adjusted for baseline differences: β 17.3, 95% CI 10.8–23.6, p = 0.0004). In addition, intervention group patients exhibited better therapeutic alliance, treatment satisfaction and self-rated medication compliance during inpatient stay. There were, however, no significant improvements in adherence and rehospitalisation rates in the 6- and 12-month follow-up. Conclusions Despite limitations in patient recruitment, the SDM-PLUS trial has shown that the adoption of behavioural approaches (e.g. motivational interviewing) for SDM may yield a successful application to mental health. The authors recommend strategies to ensure effects are not lost at the interface between in- and outpatient treatment. Trial registration: The trial was registered at Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS00010880).

scholarly journals EFFECTS OF A SHARED DECISION MAKING INTERVENTION FOR OLDER ADULTS WITH CHRONIC CONDITIONS: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S296-S297
Author(s):  
Ruth E Pel-Littel ◽  
Bianca Buurman ◽  
Marjolein van de Pol ◽  
Linda Tulner ◽  
Mirella Minkman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Abstract Shared decision making (SDM) in older patients is more complex when multiple chronic conditions (MCC) have to be taken into account. The aim of this research is to explore the effect of the evidence based implementation intervention SDMMCC on (1) the preferred and perceived participation (2) decisional conflict and (3) actual SDM during consultations. 216 outpatients participated in a video observational study. The intervention existed of a SDM training for geriatricians and a preparatory tool for patients. Consultations were videotaped and coded with the OPTIONMCC. Pre- and post-consultation questionnaires were completed. Participation was measured by the Patients’ perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS). Decisional conflict was measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The patients mean age was 77 years, 56% was female. The preparatory tool was completed by 56 older adults (52%), of which 64% rated the tool as positive. The preparatory tool was used in 12% of the consultations. The mean overall OPTIONMCC score showed no significant changes on the level of SDM(39.3 vs 39.3 P0.98), however there were significant improvements on discussing goals and options on sub-items of the scale. There were no significant differences found in the match on preferred and perceived participation (86.5% vs 85.0% P 0.595) or in decisional conflict (22.7 vs 22.9 P0.630). The limited use of the preparatory tool could have biased the effect of the intervention. In future research more attention must be paid towards the implementation of preparatory tools, not only among patients but also among geriatricians.

scholarly journals Perceived involvement and preferences in shared decision-making among patients with hypertension

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Chin Mah ◽  
Leelavathi Muthupalaniappen ◽  
Wei Wen Chong
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Perceived Involvement

scholarly journals The Missed Opportunity of Patient-Centered Medical Homes to Thrive in an Asian Context

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1817
Author(s):  
Shilpa Surendran ◽  
Chuan De Foo ◽  
Chen Hee Tam ◽  
Elaine Qiao Ying Ho ◽  
David Bruce Matchar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Centered Medical Homes ◽  
Medical Homes ◽  
Number Of Patients

In recent years, there is growing interest internationally to implement patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs), and Singapore is no exception. However, studies understanding the influence of contextual policy factors on the implementation of PCMHs are limited. We conducted 10 semi-structured in-depth interviews with general practitioners working in seven out of the nine PCMHs. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed by two study team members in NVivo 12 Software using grounded theory techniques. Power dynamics between the stakeholders and lack of shared decision-making among them in selecting the locale of the PCMH and formulating the practice fee and pharmacy structure were the key factors which negatively affected the implementation of PCMHs on a larger scale. Over time, lack of funding to hire dedicated staff to transfer patients and misalignment of various stakeholders’ interest to other right-siting programs also resulted in low number of patients with chronic conditions and revenue. Countries seeking to implement a successful PCMH may benefit from building trust and relationship between stakeholders, engaging in shared decision-making, ongoing cost-efficiency efforts, and formulating a clear delineation of responsibilities between stakeholders. For a healthcare delivery model to succeed in the primary care landscape, policies should be developed keeping mind the realities of primary care practice.

scholarly journals Paths of Emergency Department Care: Development of a Decision Aid to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in Goals of Care Discussions in the Acute Setting

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 238146832110580
Author(s):  
Laura E. Walker ◽  
M. Fernanda Bellolio ◽  
Claudia C. Dobler ◽  
Ian G. Hargraves ◽  
Robert J. Pignolo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Iterative Refinement ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Emergency Department Care ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
Code Status ◽  
Number Of Patients

Background Goals of care (GOC) conversations in the emergency department (ED) are often a brief discussion of code status rather than a patient-oriented dialogue. We aimed to develop a guide to facilitate conversations between ED clinicians and patients to elicit patient values and establish goals for end-of-life care, while maintaining ED efficiency. Paths of ED Care, a conversation guide, is the product of this work. Design A multidisciplinary/multispecialty group used recommended practices to adapt a GOC conversation guide for ED patients. ED clinicians used the guide and provided feedback on content, design, and usability. Patient-clinician interactions were recorded for discussion analysis, and both were surveyed to inform iterative refinement. A series of discussions with patient representatives, multidisciplinary clinicians, bioethicists, and health care designers yielded feedback. We used a process similar to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and provide comparison to these. Results A conversation guide, eight pages with each page 6 by 6 inches in dimension, uses patient-oriented prompts and includes seven sections: 1) evaluation of patient/family understanding of disease, 2) explanation of possible trajectories, 3) introduction to different pathways of care, 4) explanation of pathways, 5) assessment of understanding and concerns, 6) code status, and 7) personalized summary. Limitations Recruitment of sufficient number of patients/providers to the project was the primary limitation. Methods are limited to qualitative analysis of guide creation and feasibility without quantitative analysis. Conclusions Paths of ED Care is a guide to facilitate patient-centered shared decision making for ED patients, families, and clinicians regarding GOC. This may ensure care concordant with patients’ values and preferences. Use of the guide was well-received and facilitated meaningful conversations between patients and providers.

scholarly journals Shared decision-making with involuntary hospital patients: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators

BJPsych Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 113-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Domenico Giacco ◽  
Liza Mavromara ◽  
Jennifer Gamblen ◽  
Maev Conneely ◽  
Stefan Priebe
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Hospital Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Difficult Patient ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Additional Information

BackgroundLast year, there were more than 63 622 involuntary admissions to psychiatric hospitals in England. One of the core principles stipulated in the code of practice for care under the Mental Health Act is involving involuntary patients in care decisions.AimsIdentifying barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making with involuntary patients.MethodFocus groups and individual interviews with patients and clinicians who have experience with involuntary hospital treatment were carried out. Data were subjected to thematic analysis.ResultsTwenty-two patients and 16 clinicians participated. Barriers identified included challenges in communication, and noisy and busy wards making one-to-one meetings difficult. Patient involvement was identified as easier if initiated early after admission and if the whole clinical team was on board. Carers' presence helped decision-making through providing additional information and comfort.ConclusionsThe barriers and facilitators identified can inform changes in the practice of involuntary care to increase patient involvement.Declaration of interestNone.

scholarly journals A Simple Goal Elicitation Tool Improves Shared Decision Making in Outpatient Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 766-773
Author(s):  
Kevin Mertz ◽  
Romil F. Shah ◽  
Sara L. Eppler ◽  
Jeffrey Yao ◽  
Marc Safran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Introduction. Shared decision making involves educating the patient, eliciting their goals, and collaborating on a decision for treatment. Goal elicitation is challenging for physicians as previous research has shown that patients do not bring up their goals on their own. Failure to properly elicit patient goals leads to increased patient misconceptions and decisional conflict. We performed a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a simple goal elicitation tool in improving patient involvement in decision making. Methods. We conducted a randomized, single-blind study of new patients presenting to a single, outpatient surgical center. Prior to their consultation, the intervention group received a demographics questionnaire and a goal elicitation worksheet. The control group received a demographics questionnaire only. After the consultation, both groups were asked to complete the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS) survey. We compared the mean PICS scores for the intervention and control groups using a nonparametric Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test. Secondary analysis included a qualitative content analysis of the patient goals. Results. Our final cohort consisted of 96 patients (46 intervention, 50 control). Both groups were similar in terms of demographic composition. The intervention group had a significantly higher mean (SD) PICS score compared to the control group (9.04 [2.15] v. 7.54 [2.27], P < 0.01). Thirty-nine percent of patient goals were focused on receiving a diagnosis or treatment, while 21% of patients wanted to receive education regarding their illness or their treatment options. Discussion. A single-step goal elicitation tool was effective in improving patient-perceived involvement in their care. This tool can be efficiently implemented in both academic and nonacademic settings.

Shared Decision Making for Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services Before Discharge from Psychiatric Hospitals

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 631-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaara Zisman-Ilani ◽  
David Roe ◽  
Glyn Elwyn ◽  
Haggai Kupermintz ◽  
Noa Patya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Psychiatric Rehabilitation ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Rehabilitation Services ◽  
Shared Decision

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Behavior Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document