Giving Patients Choices During Involuntary Admission
A New Intervention
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15524633 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Erin Burn (0000-0002-2515-8264, Centre for Mental Health), Maev Conneely (0000-0001-8326-4498, Centre for Mental Health), Monica Leverton (0000-0001-6678-5865, University College London), Domenico Giacco (0000-0001-7809-8800, Queen Mary University of London, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 10 |
| Pages | 433-433 |
| Publication date | 2019-07-04 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Frontiers in Psychiatry (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1664-0640 • E-ISSN: 1664-0640 |
| Publisher | Frontiers Media (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00433 |
| PMID | 31333510 |
| OpenAlex | W2954502603 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 8 |
Background: People who receive involuntary treatment are some of the most vulnerable in psychiatric services. They are more likely to have poorer social and clinical outcomes and to be disillusioned with and disengaged from care. Research indicates that patients' experience in the first week of involuntary treatment is a critical period: a better experience of care in the first week predicts better quality of life and reduced readmission 1 year later. Patients have identified involvement in clinical decisions as key to improving their experience of care. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention to facilitate involvement in decision making for involuntary inpatients called OPeNS (Options, Preferences, Negotiate, and Summarise). Methods: This was a mixed method study. The OPeNS intervention was developed based on previous research carried out by a multidisciplinary team. Clinicians were trained to deliver it to involuntary inpatients. Feasibility indices (rates of participation in the intervention and time required to deliver it) were collected. Patients ( N = 14) and clinicians ( N = 5) provided qualitative data on their experience of the intervention in semi-structured interviews which were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: The OPeNS intervention was found to be acceptable by both patients and clinicians and feasible to conduct within the first week of involuntary treatment. Patients' and clinicians' experiences of the intervention fall into two themes: 'Enabling a different dynamic' and 'Clashing with usual practices and priorities'. Conclusion: The OPeNS intervention provides a structure that can be used by clinicians across disciplines to facilitate involving involuntary patients in decision making. Although challenges related to changing usual practices were identified, the intervention was received positively and was feasible to conduct in the first week of involuntary treatment
Intervention (counseling · Involuntary treatment · Mental health · Multidisciplinary approach · Psychiatry · Qualitative research · Quality of life (healthcare · Thematic analysis · Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints · Medicine · Mental Health and Psychiatry · Nursing · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Psychology
Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care
An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters
Shared decision making for psychiatric medication management
Effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with depression
Primary Care Patients’ Involvement in Decision-Making Is Associated With Improvement in Depression
Using thematic analysis in psychology
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,4 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2022 (2) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |