Search

Background: Influence strategies such as persuasion and interpersonal leverage are used in mental health care to influence patient behaviour and improve treatment adherence. One ethical concern about using such strategies is that they may constitute coercive behaviour ("informal coercion") and negatively impact patient satisfaction and the quality of care. However, some influence strategies may affect patients' perceptions, so an umbrella definition of "informal coercion" may be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, previous research indicates that professionals also perceive dissonance between theoretical explanations of informal coercion and their behaviours in clinical practice. This study analysed mental health professionals' (MHPs) views and the perceived ethical implications of influence strategies in community care., Methods: Qualitative secondary data analysis of a focus group study was used to explore the conflict between theoretical definitions and MHPs' experiences concerning the coerciveness of influence strategies. Thirty-six focus groups were conducted in the main study, with 227 MHPs from nine countries participating., Results: The findings indicate that not all the influence strategies discussed with participants can be defined as "informal coercion", but they become coercive when they imply the use of a lever, have the format of a conditional offer and when the therapeutic proposal is not a patient's free choice but is driven by professionals. MHPs are rarely aware of these tensions within their everyday practice; consequently, it is possible that coercive practices are inadvertently being used, with no standard regarding their application. Our findings suggest that levers and the type of leverage used in communications with the patient are also relevant to differentiating leveraged and non-leveraged influence., Conclusion: Our findings may help mental health professionals working in community care to identify and discuss influence strategies that may lead to unintended coercive practices., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

This paper explores the subjective experiences of mental health practitioners, people with psychosis and carers, on social isolation and community integration of people with psychosis. Focus groups and one-to-one interviews with 80 adult participants across three sites in the UK were conducted. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Participants commented on various aspects that may cause social isolation or enable community integration, including institutional factors (lack of resources, hospitalisation impact), illness symptoms (e.g., paranoia; over-pathologising vs individual choice), stigma (particularly the psychosis label), and the importance of communities that foster agency and embrace change. Hospitalisation maybe be a cause for isolation and psychiatric wards should consider allowing for socialisation as a therapeutic tool. Initiatives should consider the social fabric of our communities, socioeconomic inequalities and stigmatisation. Building communities that are accepting, kind and flexible can create opportunities that could lead to independence from mental health services., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Providing effective treatment for immigrants is an increasing challenge for mental health services across Europe. Yet, little is known as to whether current practice is associated with different outcomes in migrant and non-migrant patients. We compared outcomes of inpatient psychiatric treatment for migrants and non-migrants in a sample from five European countries., Methods: Patients with psychotic disorders, affective disorders or anxiety/somatisation disorders admitted to routine psychiatric inpatient treatment were assessed in hospitals in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom. Treatment outcomes were satisfaction with care during hospitalisation, length of stay, readmission to hospital (any and, specifically, involuntary re-hospitalisation), as well as untoward incidents in a 1-year follow-up period. Outcomes were compared between patients born inside (non-migrants) and outside (migrants) the country of treatment, through mixed regression models., Results: Across all sites, 985 migrant patients and 6298 non-migrant patients were included. After accounting for the influence of confounding patient characteristics, migrants reported significantly lower treatment satisfaction, but there were no significant differences for length of stay and re-hospitalisations, in general and involuntary ones. Migrants had a lower rate of suicide attempts, but there was no significant difference in other types of untoward incidents in the year following the index admission., Conclusion: The study suggests that migrants are less satisfied with their hospital treatment, there is no evidence that routine inpatient care as currently provided results overall in poorer objective outcomes for migrants than in non-migrant populations., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The current debate on organisation of the mental health care raises a question whether to prioritise specialisation of clinical teams or personal continuity of care. The article explores the experiences of patients and clinicians regarding specialisation (SC) and personal continuity (PCC) of care in five European countries., Methods: Data were obtained via in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients (N = 188) suffering from mental disorders (F20-49) and with clinicians (N = 63). A maximum variation sampling was applied to assume representation of patients and of clinicians with different characteristics. The qualitative data from each country were transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed through a thematic analysis method., Results: Many positive experiences of patients and clinicians with the PCC approach relate to the high quality of therapeutic relationship and the smooth transition between hospital and community care. Many positive experiences of patients and clinicians with the SC approach relate to concepts of autonomy and choice and the higher adequacy of diagnosis and treatment. Clinicians stressed system aspects of providing mental health care: more effective management structure and higher professionalization of care within SC approach and the lower risk of disengagement from treatment and reduced need for coercion, restraint, forced medication or involuntary admission within PCC., Conclusions: Neither the PCC, nor the SC approach meets the needs and expectations of all patients (and clinicians). Therefore, future reforms of mental health services should offer a free choice of either approach, considering that there is no evidence of differences in patient outcomes between PCC and SC approaches.

Background: Patient satisfaction is a key indicator of inpatient care quality and is associated with clinical outcomes following admission. Different patient characteristics have been inconsistently linked with satisfaction. This study aims to overcome previous limitations by assessing which patient characteristics are associated with satisfaction within a large study of psychiatric inpatients conducted across five European countries., Methods: All patients with a diagnosis of psychotic (F2), affective (F3) or anxiety/somataform (F4) disorder admitted to 57 psychiatric inpatient units in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Poland and the UK were included. Data were collected from medical records and face-to-face interviews, with patients approached within 2 days of admission. Satisfaction with inpatient care was measured on the Client Assessment of Treatment Scale., Results: Higher satisfaction scores were associated with being older, employed, living with others, having a close friend, less severe illness and a first admission. In contrast, higher education levels, comorbid personality disorder and involuntary admission were associated with lower levels of satisfaction. Although the same patient characteristics predicted satisfaction within the five countries, there were significant differences in overall satisfaction scores across countries. Compared to other countries, patients in the UK were significantly less satisfied with their inpatient care., Conclusions: Having a better understanding of patient satisfaction may enable services to improve the quality of care provided as well as clinical outcomes for all patients. Across countries, the same patient characteristics predict satisfaction, suggesting that similar analytical frameworks can and should be used when assessing satisfaction both nationally and internationally.

Aims: A core question in the debate about how to organise mental healthcare is whether in- and out-patient treatment should be provided by the same (personal continuity) or different psychiatrists (specialisation). The controversial debate drives costly organisational changes in several European countries, which have gone in opposing directions. The existing evidence is based on small and low-quality studies which tend to favour whatever the new experimental organisation is.We compared 1-year clinical outcomes of personal continuity and specialisation in routine care in a large scale study across five European countries., Methods: This is a 1-year prospective natural experiment conducted in Belgium, England, Germany, Italy and Poland. In all these countries, both personal continuity and specialisation exist in routine care. Eligible patients were admitted for psychiatric in-patient treatment (18 years of age), and clinically diagnosed with a psychotic, mood or anxiety/somatisation disorder.Outcomes were assessed 1 year after the index admission. The primary outcome was re-hospitalisation and analysed for the full sample and subgroups defined by country, and different socio-demographic and clinical criteria. Secondary outcomes were total number of inpatient days, involuntary re-admissions, adverse events and patients' social situation. Outcomes were compared through mixed regression models in intention-to-treat analyses. The study is registered (ISRCTN40256812)., Results: We consecutively recruited 7302 patients; 6369 (87.2%) were followed-up. No statistically significant differences were found in re-hospitalisation, neither overall (adjusted percentages: 38.9% in personal continuity, 37.1% in specialisation; odds ratio = 1.08; confidence interval 0.94-1.25; p = 0.28) nor for any of the considered subgroups. There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes., Conclusions: Whether the same or different psychiatrists provide in- and out-patient treatment appears to have no substantial impact on patient outcomes over a 1-year period. Initiatives to improve long-term outcomes of psychiatric patients may focus on aspects other than the organisation of personal continuity v. specialisation.

Background: Observational research has found that involuntary treatment provides limited benefits in terms of long-term clinical outcomes. Our aim was to review literature on existing interventions in order to identify helpful approaches to improve outcomes of involuntary treatment., Methods: This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Seven databases (AMED, PsycINFO, Embase Classic, Embase 1974-2017, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and BNI) were searched and the results were analysed in a narrative synthesis., Results: Nineteen papers describing fourteen different interventions were included. Using narrative synthesis the interventions were summarised into three categories: a) structured patient-centred care planning; b) specialist therapeutic interventions; c) systemic changes to hospital practice. The methodologies used and outcomes assessed were heterogeneous. Most studies were of low quality, although five interventions were tested in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Preliminary evidence supports structured patient-centred care planning interventions have an effect on long-term outcomes (such as readmission), and that specialist therapeutic interventions and systemic changes to hospital practice have an effect on reducing the use of coercive measures on wards., Conclusions: This review shows that it is possible to conduct rigorous intervention-testing studies in involuntary patients, including RCTs. Yet, the overall evidence is limited. Structured patient-centred care planning interventions show promise for the improvement of long-term outcomes and should be further evaluated., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Debate exists as to whether functional care, in which different psychiatrists are responsible for in- and out-patient care, leads to better in-patient treatment as compared with sectorised care, in which the same psychiatrist is responsible for care across settings. Aims To compare patient satisfaction with in-patient treatment and length of stay in functional and sectorised care., Method: Patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis of psychotic, affective or anxiety/somatoform disorders consecutively admitted to an adult acute psychiatric ward in 23 hospitals across 11 National Health Service trusts in England were recruited. Patient satisfaction with in-patient care and length of stay (LoS) were compared (trial registration ISRCTN40256812)., Results: In total, 2709 patients were included, of which 1612 received functional and 1097 sectorised care. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in sectorised care (β = 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.73, P<0.001). This difference remained significant when adjusting for locality and patient characteristics. LoS was 6.9 days shorter for patients in sectorised care (β = -6.89, 95% CI -11.76 to -2.02, P<0.001), but this difference did not remain significant when adjusting for clustering by hospital (β = -4.89, 95% CI -13.34 to 3.56, P = 0.26)., Conclusions: This is the first robust evidence that patient satisfaction with in-patient treatment is higher in sectorised care, whereas findings for LoS are less conclusive. If patient satisfaction is seen as a key criterion, sectorised care seems preferable. Declarations of interest None.

Introduction: Mental healthcare organisation can either pursue specialisation, that is, distinct clinicians and teams for inpatient and outpatient care or personal continuity of care, that is, the same primary clinician for a patient across the two settings. Little systematic research has compared these approaches. Existing studies subject have serious methodological shortcomings. Yet, costly reorganisations of services have been carried out in different European countries, inconsistently aiming to achieve specialisation or personal continuity of care. More reliable evidence is required on whether specialisation or continuity of care is more effective and cost-effective, and whether this varies for different patient groups and contexts., Design and Methods: In a natural experiment, we aim to recruit at least 6000 patients consecutively admitted to inpatient psychiatric care in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the UK. In each country, care approaches supporting specialisation and personal continuity coexist. Patients will be followed up at 1 year to compare outcomes, costs and experiences. Inclusion criteria are: 18 years of age or older; clinical diagnosis of psychosis, affective disorder or anxiety/somatisation disorder; sufficient command of the language of the host country; absence of cognitive deterioration and/or organic brain disorders; and capacity to provide informed consent., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained in all countries: (1) England: NRES Committee North East-Newcastle & North Tyneside (ref: 14/NE/1017); (2) Belgium: Comité d'Ethique hospitalo-facultaire des Cliniques St-Luc; (3) Germany: Ethical Board, Technische Universität Dresden; (4) Italy: Comitati Etici per la sperimentazione clinica (CESC) delle provincie di Verona, Rovigo, Vicenza, Treviso, Padova; (5) Poland: Komisja Bioetyczna przy Instytucie Psychiatrii i Neurologii w Warszawie. We will disseminate the findings through scientific publications and a study-specific website. At the end of the study, we will develop recommendations for policy decision-making, and organise national and international workshops with stakeholders., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN40256812., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: A central question for the organisation of mental health care is whether the same clinicians should be responsible for a patient's care across inpatient and outpatient settings (continuity of care) or if there should be separate teams (specialisation). Current reforms in Europe are inconsistent on which to favour, and are based on little research evidence. This review is the first systematic appraisal of the existing evidence comparing continuity of care and specialisation across inpatient and outpatient mental health care., Method: A systematic search for studies of any design comparing mental health care systems based on continuity or specialisation of care was performed. Differences in clinical, social and cost-effective outcomes, and the views and experiences of patients and staff were assessed using narrative synthesis., Results: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies had methodological shortcomings, but findings point towards reduced length and number of hospitalisations, and faster or more flexible transitions between services in continuity systems. Survey and qualitative findings suggest advantages of both systems, whilst patients and staff appear to prefer a continuity system., Conclusion: The evidence base suggests better outcomes and stakeholder preferences for continuity of care systems, but the quality of existing studies is insufficient to draw definitive conclusions. Higher quality comparative studies across various settings and population groups are urgently needed., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a brief quantitative five-language measure of involvement and satisfaction in clinical decision-making (CDIS) - with versions for patients (CDIS-P) and staff (CDIS-S) - for use in mental health services., Methods: An English CDIS was developed by reviewing existing measures, focus groups, semistructured interviews and piloting. Translations into Danish, German, Hungarian and Italian followed the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force principles of good practice for translation and cultural adaptation. Psychometricevaluation involved testing the measure in secondary mental health services in Aalborg, Debrecen, London, Naples, Ulm and Zurich., Results: After appraising 14 measures, the Control Preference Scale and Satisfaction With Decision-making English-language scales were modified and evaluated in interviews (n = 9), focus groups (n = 22) and piloting (n = 16). Translations were validated through focus groups (n = 38) and piloting (n = 61). A total of 443 service users and 403 paired staff completed CDIS. The Satisfaction sub-scale had internal consistency of 0.89 (0.86-0.89 after item-level deletion) for staff and 0.90 (0.87-0.90) for service users, both continuous and categorical (utility) versions were associated with symptomatology and both staff-rated and service userrated therapeutic alliance (showing convergent validity), and not with social disability (showing divergent validity), and satisfaction predicted staff-rated (OR 2.43, 95%CI 1.54- 3.83 continuous, OR 5.77, 95%CI 1.90-17.53 utility) and service user-rated (OR 2.21, 95%CI 1.51-3.23 continuous, OR 3.13, 95%CI 1.10-8.94 utility) decision implementation two months later. The Involvement sub-scale had appropriate distribution and no floor or ceiling effects, was associated with stage of recovery, functioning and quality of life (staff only) (showing convergent validity), and not with symptomatology or social disability (showing divergent validity), and staff-rated passive involvement by the service user predicted implementation (OR 3.55, 95%CI 1.53-8.24). Relationships remained after adjusting for clustering by staff., Conclusions: CDIS demonstrates adequate internal consistency, no evidence of item redundancy, appropriate distribution, and face, content, convergent, divergent and predictive validity. It can be recommended for research and clinical use. CDIS-P and CDIS-S in all 3 five languages can be downloaded at http://www.cedar-net.eu/instruments., Trial Registration: ISRCTN75841675.

Purpose of Review: The article reviews recent evidence on improving access to mental healthcare for immigrants and best practice of care provision., Recent Findings: Language barriers, different beliefs and explanatory models of illness, confidentiality concerns, stigma, reluctance to seek psychological help outside families, and social deprivation may prevent immigrants from accessing mental healthcare. Pathways are influenced by families, primary care practitioners, voluntary organizations, and social services. Interpreting services are often not available, and data documentation on immigrants' use of services is inconsistent. Nonmedical specific services for immigrants can be effective in outreach activities. Cultural training of staff can improve clinicians' attitudes and patients' satisfaction with care. Integrative approaches between primary and mental healthcare, psychoeducational programs, and technological innovations have been developed to improve access to care., Summary: Immigrants can face significant barriers in accessing mental healthcare. Strategies to overcome these barriers are as follows: increased coordination and communication between voluntary organizations, social services and mental health services; training of staff on cross-cultural issues; integration of mental healthcare with primary care; psychoeducational initiatives focused on families and broader social groups; and technology-based interventions.