Ethical Dilemmas of Participation of Service Users with Serious Mental Illness: A Thematic Synthesis

Decision-making participation of people with mental health difficulties at a community rehabilitation center in Taiwan

PURPOSE

This study employed institutional ethnography to analyse the experiences of individuals with mental health difficulties in a Taiwanese community rehabilitation centre.

METHODS

This study applies the institutional ethnography method. Data were gathered through participatory observation; in-depth interviews with individuals with mental health difficulties and professionals; and textual analysis of policies, regulations, and practices within the centre.

RESULTS

First, entrenched power dynamics persist, stifling discourse on the agency of individuals with mental health difficulties. The prevalent medical model continues to govern service provision, reinforcing professional hierarchies that impede collaboration. Second, community rehabilitation centres exacerbate disadvantages for case managers (who are muted in the presence of professionals) and service users (who lose autonomy in professional discussions). Third, compliance assessments overshadow individualized care. Fourth, the community rehabilitation model may inadvertently confine service users, prolonging institutionalization and conforming to societal norms.

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores the need for significant improvements in Taiwan's mental healthcare system to emphasize individuals' rights.

The Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals and Managers on Patient Involvement in Care Pathway Development: A Discourse Analysis

BACKGROUND

The WHO advocates patient and public involvement as an ethical imperative, due to the value of the lived experience of patients. A deeper understanding of the shared meanings and underlying beliefs of healthcare professionals and managers for and against including patients in care pathway development.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the considerations of healthcare professionals and managers on the involvement of patients and public in care pathway development.

METHODS

In a medical rehabilitation centre we conducted a single case study that was part of a 2-year action research programme on blended care pathway development. Following 14 semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals and managers, we analysed their discourses on the value of patient involvement as well as the potential threats and opportunities.

RESULTS

We identified four discourses. Patient as expert frames involvement as relevant, as adding new perspectives and as required to fully understand the patient's needs. Skills and representation is based on the construct that obtaining valuable insights from patients requires certain skills and competences. Self-protection focusses on personal, interprofessional objections to patient involvement. Professional knows best reveals expertise-related reasons for avoiding or postponing involvement.

CONCLUSION

These discourses explain why patient and public involvement in care pathway development is sometimes postponed, limited in scope and level of participation, and/or avoided. The following strategies might minimise the paralysing effect of these discourses: strengthen the capabilities of all stakeholders involved; use a mix of complementary techniques to gain involvement in distinct phases of care pathway development; and create/facilitate a safe environment. Put together, these strategies would foster ongoing, reciprocal learning that could enhance patient involvement.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study belonged to an action research programme on blended care pathway development (developing an integrated, coordinated patient care plan that combines remote, digital telehealth applications, self-management tools and face-to-face care). Multidisciplinary teams took a quality collaborative approach to quality improvement (considering patients as stakeholders) to develop 11 blended care pathways. Although professionals and managers were instructed to invite patients onto their teams and to attend care pathway design workshops, few teams (3/11) actually did. Unravelling why this happened will help improve patient and public involvement in care pathway development.

Responsible coordination of municipal health and care services for individuals with serious mental illness: a participatory qualitative study with service users and professionals

BACKGROUND

Care coordination is crucial to ensure the health of individuals with serious mental illness. The aim of this study was to describe and analyze an inclusive innovation process for coordinating municipal health and care services for individuals with serious mental illness.

METHODS

We conducted café dialogues with professionals and service users with serious mental illness. The café dialogues engaged participants in conversation and knowledge exchange about care coordination, adressing topics of efficiency, challenges, and improvement. We used a responsible innovation framework to analyze the innovation process.

RESULTS

Responsible coordination requires promoting service users' health and ensuring communication and mutual awareness between professionals. Individual-level factors supporting responsible coordination included service users knowing their assigned professionals, personalized healthcare services, and access to meaningful activities. Provider-level factors included effective coordination routines, communication, information exchange, and professional familiarity. Results reflect professionals' and service users' perspectives on efficient care coordination, existing challenges, and measures to improve care coordination.

CONCLUSION

Café dialogues are an inclusive, participatory method that can produce insights into the responsible coordination of municipal health and care services for individuals with serious mental illness. The responsible innovation framework is helpful in identifying care coordination challenges and measures for responsible coordination.

Ask us! Adjusting experience-based codesign to be responsive to people with intellectual disabilities, serious mental illness or older persons receiving support with independent living

Introduction

Experience‐based codesign (EBCD) is a valuable tool for participatory quality improvement. However, the EBCD process needs to be adjusted to make it suitable for long‐term care. The focus of the improvement process needs to shift to the care relationship, as this is an important part of the quality of care in these settings. Furthermore, the EBCD process needs to be made more accessible to vulnerable populations.

Methods

Through a participatory research approach, EBCD was adjusted to long‐term care. The research was conducted in two care organisations: one supporting people with serious mental illness and intellectual disabilities in independent living and one providing homecare services for older persons.

Results

The participatory research resulted in the development of ‘Ask us!’—a method for critical reflective codesign. The research furthermore provided valuable lessons for participatory projects with vulnerable clients. A common problem with participatory research in long‐term care is ensuring the involvement of clients and informal carers. We report on various strategies developed to include experiences of a diverse set of services users, such as combining interviews with participant observation, photo‐voice and involving experts‐by‐experiences as co‐ethnographers. In close collaboration with an inclusive theatre company, these experiences were translated into 42 short videos on complex situations in the care relationship from the perspective of clients, professionals or informal carers. These videos instigate critical reflection and accelerate the participatory quality improvement process. Moreover, practical tools were developed to overcome barriers regarding the involvement of people with disabilities. These include the use of photo‐elicitation to enable participation of clients with disabilities in heterogeneous group discussions and involving experts‐by‐experience as proxies to share experiences of clients for whom participation in the ‘Ask us’ method remains inaccessible.

Conclusion

The result of a robust participatory process, ‘Ask us!’ is a promising method for participatory quality improvement in long‐term care. The research furthermore generated lessons for involving vulnerable populations in participatory research and codesign.

Patient or Public Contribution

Clients were involved as informants, sharing their experiences with the care relationship in interviews, photovoice and observations. They were also involved as consultants, helping to analyse input for the film scripts during data validation sessions.