Shared decision making in a semi-secluded chronic psychiatric ward: The reflective lifeworld experiences of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders and nursing staff

A qualitative study of hermeneutic analysis in individuals with schizophrenia, psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses writings on selected narratives

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: In daily psychiatric practice, understanding individuals often involves formulating the clinical case, which may lead to viewing them solely as symptoms to be solved. Consequently, it can be challenging to see the individual beyond their symptoms. However, trying to understand the individual by his/her writings about narratives can offer broader perspectives and extend beyond being a medium for patients to express their experiences. On understanding writing, hermeneutics will be a resourceful method. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This study aims to propose a reevaluation of the nature of therapeutic communication among individuals with schizophrenia, psychiatrists, and psychiatric nurses by interpreting their writings on the same written narratives through a hermeneutic analysis. Our study has unique features compared to previous studies on communication between mental health professionals and patients. We directly investigated the act of understanding through the writings of the three groups of participants. The participants were also engaged in reading and writing about the narratives instead of relying on clinical interviews or self-report questionnaires. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first hermeneutic study to examine the nature of reflection while all three groups encounter the same narratives as readers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: The results point to the need for psychiatrists/psychiatric nurses to develop new perspectives and skills in understanding/interacting with individuals with schizophrenia. Our study could be a pioneer sample in applying hermeneutics as a prevailing method to mental health nursing practice.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Understanding individuals with schizophrenia is an essential but challenging phenomenon in psychiatry.

AIM/QUESTION

This study proposes a reevaluation of the nature of therapeutic communication among individuals with schizophrenia, psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses by interpreting their writings on the same written narratives through a hermeneutic analysis.

METHOD

In this study, employing a qualitative descriptive methodology utilising hermeneutic analysis, participants read the five narratives, wrote down their opinions on each narratives and answered nine questions to express their own personal writing experiences.

RESULTS

Participants from each group acted as both 'readers' and 'authors' while rewriting the selected five short narratives based on their own sense of readings. The expression, rewriting refers to the act of reading and written interpretations of participants and researchers in this study. While individuals with schizophrenia primarily focused on the text (narrative) in their readings and writings, psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses tended to focus on reader (themselves) in their interpretations.

DISCUSSION

Although reading should be approached as a process of discovery rather than merely seeking predetermined knowledge, psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses read the narratives as if the author were a patient or as the signs of an illness.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results point to the need for psychiatrists/psychiatric nurses to develop new perspectives and skills in understanding and interacting with individuals with schizophrenia.

Promoting Personal Recovery Within Psychiatric Inpatient Care-Nurses' Experiences

To meet the aim of synthesising research on nurses' experiences of promoting personal recovery within psychiatric inpatient care, meta ethnography according to Noblit and Hare has been chosen as the method, which is a qualitative review of scientific literature that results in a synthesis. The focus is on interpretation and is expressed to be able to reduce a story, but at the same time keep what is unique using metaphors. Nine articles formed the basis of the synthesis. The analysis resulted in two levels of synthesis. The first level involved the translation of metaphors into one another, which proceeded in two directions, described as two principal headings. The second level produced five overarching metaphors. The first principal heading is that 'erected walls in psychiatric inpatient care impedes personal recovery.' It encompasses the overarching metaphors 'cultivating in exhausted soil' and 'nurses are gatekeeping watchdogs'. The second principal heading is 'torn-down walls in psychiatric inpatient care enable personal recovery'. It encompasses the overarching metaphors 'disarming and de-escalating', 'facing suffering together reveals treasures' and 'elevating the competent partner promotes recovery'. Conclusively, if the nurse is to be able to promote personal recovery in psychiatric inpatient care, bridges of cooperation and consensus need to be built to other professions in care. Otherwise, the obstacles to promoting personal recovery will be far too hard to overcome.

Research Progress of Shared Decision-Making in Schizophrenia with Anxiety

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been practiced fairly frequently in general medicine, but less so in mental disorders, especially in closed psychiatric wards, and its positive predictor has recently been recognized in the field of mental health. Studies have shown that patients with severe mental disorders want a say in their care and their desire to participate in clinical decision-making is even higher than those treated by general medical services. This review aims to explore the research progress of SDM for patients with schizophrenia with anxiety in a collectivist culture (such as Chinese culture) and to provide a reference for the implementation of SDM in closed psychiatric wards.

A meta-ethnography of shared decision-making in mental health care from the perspective of staff and service users

BACKGROUND

Human rights, recovery, and value-based approaches are integral to strategic changes and development in mental health care. Successfully integrating such person-centred values in mental health services requires a paradigm shift from traditional biomedical models of care to a more human rights-based approach. An important aspect of this is shared decision making (SDM) between mental health staff and service users. Whilst it is widely acknowledged SDM leads to improved outcomes, there are barriers and challenges to implementing this approach effectively in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to assess existing empirical research exploring mental health service users and/or staff's attitudes towards and experiences of SDM in adult mental health care settings.

METHODS

The review and protocol were registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023369472). Systematic searches were run on four databases. Search terms pertained to studies reporting on mental health staff or service users' experiences of SDM in adult mental health care. Initial searches yielded 721 results. Included studies were analysed using a meta-ethnographic approach.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were included. Data were synthesised using meta ethnographic synthesis, which produced four higher order themes with related subthemes; the role of service user ownership, the influence of fluctuating capacity, the importance of therapeutic alliance and changing clinicians' behaviours and attitudes.

IMPLICATIONS

Both staff and service users found SDM to be an important factor in delivering high quality, effective mental health care. Despite this, participants had very little experience of implementing SDM in practice due to several personal, professional, and organisational challenges. This suggests that differences exist between what services strive towards achieving, and the experience of those implementing this in practice. These findings suggest that further research needs to be conducted to fully understand the barriers of implementing SDM in mental health services with training delivered to staff and service users about SDM.

A Nursing Process for Shared Decision-Making for Patients with Severe Mental Illness Receiving Treatment Involving Long-Term Coercive Measures: A Modified Grounded Theory Approach

The use of shared decision-making (SDM) has recently attracted attention for building recovery-oriented therapeutic relationships with patients with severe mental illness (SMI). The purpose of this study was to describe a nursing process for SDM for psychiatric patients with SMI being treated via long-term coercive measures, such as seclusion and physical restraint, in the "seclusion room" of a psychiatric ward. The study used a modified grounded theory approach. The participants were 17 psychiatric nurses. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews. Concepts and categories were generated from verbatim transcripts, and their relationships were illustrated using a diagram and by generating a storyline. The nursing process for SDM was based on sensing the response to triggering stimuli, and the nurse-led preventive measures compensated for the patients' lack of coping skills. Because of the patients' persistent instability in response to certain stimuli, in our process, nurses are involved in creating opportunities for self-understanding and self-selection while also taking proactive preventative measures. Patients' reactions to surrounding stimuli were evaluated by nurses, who then determined whether they (or the patient) should take the lead in terms of decision-making.

Trust, discrimination and preference for shared decision-making in adolescents diagnosed with depression: Implications from Chinese mental health professionals

BACKGROUND

While evidence suggests that the attitudes of healthcare providers toward medical decision-making in adolescents diagnosed with depression merit exploration, research on their preferences for Shared Decision-Making (SDM) and the factors affecting these preferences remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate Chinese mental health professionals' (MHPs) preferences for SDM in adolescents with depression and identify the relationships between their preference for SDM and trust and discrimination.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was used in this study. Clinical Decision-making Style-Staff (CDMS-S) was applied to evaluate their preferences for SDM. Physician Trust in the Patient Scale (PTPS) was utilised to assess their trust in consumers. Social Distance Scale to Mental Illness (SDSMI) was utilised to measure their discrimination against people with mental illness.

RESULTS

A total of 581 MHPs were identified in China. MHPs rated their preference for participation in decision making (PD) as shared (1.89 ± 0.472), information (IN) as moderate (2.62 ± 0.682), and family involvement (FI) as high (3.13 ± 0.840). The preferences for three decision topics ranked from the highest to the lowest score were working-related decision (2.35 ± 0.681), general preferences in decision (1.82 ± 0.581) and medication-related decision (1.74 ± 0.826). The mean score of PTPS and SDSMI were 34.71 (SD=9.709) and 15.17 (SD=4.299), respectively. Logistic regression indicated that the preference for PD was associated with discrimination; the preference for IN was associated with trust, discrimination and SDM-related training experience; and the preference for FI was associated with both trust and discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

While MHPs generally exhibit a favourable attitude toward SDM, this positivity is not universally observed across all contexts. There remains room for improvement in the willingness to co-develop medication regimens and share health information. Rational recognition of depression, and building trusting and friendly therapeutic relationships are key to promoting MHPs' preferences for SDM.

PRACTICAL VALUE

MHPs' preferences for SDM have a significant impact on SDM implementation, which will be promoted by implementing SDM-related training.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Experiences of persons with multiple sclerosis of a collaborative care programme: A qualitative study

AIM

This study aimed to explain the experiences of individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) about the collaborative care programme.

DESIGN

This qualitative study was conducted from July 2021 to March 2022.

METHODS

We conducted this study with individuals with MS who participated in the collaborative care programme in Hamadan, Iran. A purposive sampling with maximum variety was applied to recruit patients until data saturation. Eventually, 18 patients consented and were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The transcriptions of audio-checked interviews were analysed using a conventional content analysis approach of Graneheim and Lundman by MAXQDA 10, 2010 edition.

RESULTS

The study identified three main categories. that emerged from the participants' experiences of collaborative care: the 'Beginning of Communication', which included two subcategories, 'Introduction and Acquaintance with Each Other' and 'Formation of Trust'; 'Mutual Interaction', which included three subcategories, 'Dialogue', 'Mutual Goal Setting' and 'Mutual Agreement of Care Solutions'; and 'Exchange of Targeted Behaviors', which included six categories, Implementation of Strategies for 'Nutritional Behaviors', 'Sleep and Rest', 'Constipation Relief', 'Promotion of Physical Activity and Exercise', 'Fatigue Reduction' and 'Stress Management'.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight the statistically significant role of collaborative care in MS management. Utilizing these research findings can update the development of interventions based on collaborative care, which can provide appropriate support to individuals with MS.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Individuals with multiple sclerosis.

Implementation and staff understanding of shared decision-making in the context of recovery-oriented care across US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient mental healthcare units: a mixed-methods evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To examine the understanding and practice of shared decision-making (SDM) within the context of recovery-oriented care across Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient mental healthcare units.

DESIGN

VHA inpatient mental health units were scored on the Recovery-Oriented Acute Inpatient Scale (RAIN). Scores on the RAIN item for medication SDM were used to rank each site from lowest to highest. The top 7 and bottom 8 sites (n=15) were selected for additional analyses using a mixed-methods approach, involving qualitative interviews, observation notes and quantitative data.

SETTING

34 VHA inpatient mental health units located in every geographical region of the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

55 treatment team members.

RESULTS

Our results identified an overarching theme of 'power-sharing' that describes participants' conceptualisation and practice of medication decision-making. Three levels of power sharing emerged from both interview and observational data: (1) No power sharing: patients are excluded from treatment decisions; (2) Limited power sharing: patients are informed of treatment decisions but have limited influence on the decision-making process; and (3) Shared-power: patients and providers work collaboratively and contribute to medication decisions. Comparing interview to observational data, only observational data indicating those themes differentiate top from bottom scoring sites on the RAIN SDM item scores. All but one top scoring sites indicated shared power medication decision processes, whereas bottom sites reflected mostly no power sharing. Additionally, our findings highlight three key factors that facilitate the implementation of SDM: inclusion of veteran in treatment teams, patient education and respect for patient autonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of SDM appears feasible in acute inpatient mental health units. Although most participants were well informed about SDM, that knowledge did not always translate into practice, which supports the need for ongoing implementation support for SDM. Additional contextual factors underscore the value of patients' self-determination as a guiding principle for SDM, highlighting the role of a supporting, empowering and autonomy-generating environment.