Simone Farrelly1, Helen Lester1, Diana Rose1, Max Birchwood2, Max Marshall3, Waquas Waheed4, R Claire Henderson1, George Szmukler1, Graham Thornicroft1. 1. Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK. 2. Division of Health and Wellbeing, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK. 3. Division of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 4. Centre for Primary care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing calls for shared decision making (SDM), the precise mechanisms for its attainment are unclear. Sharing decisions in mental health care may be especially complex. Fluctuations in service user capacity and significant power differences are particular barriers. OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: We trialled a form of facilitated SDM that aimed to generate patients' treatment preferences in advance of a possible relapse. The 'Joint Crisis Plan' (JCP) intervention was trialled in four mental health trusts in England between 2008 and 2011. This qualitative study used grounded theory methods to analyse focus group and interview data to understand how stakeholders perceived the intervention and the barriers to SDM in the form of a JCP. RESULTS: Fifty service users with psychotic disorders and 45 clinicians participated in focus groups or interviews between February 2010 and November 2011. Results suggested four barriers to clinician engagement in the JCP: (i) ambivalence about care planning; (ii) perceptions that they were 'already doing SDM'; (iii) concerns regarding the clinical 'appropriateness of service users' choices'; and (iv) limited 'availability of service users' choices'. Service users reported barriers to SDM in routine practice, most of which were addressed by the JCP process. Barriers identified by clinicians led to their lack of constructive engagement in the process, undermining the service users' experience. CONCLUSIONS: Future work requires interventions targeted at the engagement of clinicians addressing their concerns about SDM. Particular strategies include organizational investment in implementation of service users' choices and directly training clinicians in SDM communication processes.
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing calls for shared decision making (SDM), the precise mechanisms for its attainment are unclear. Sharing decisions in mental health care may be especially complex. Fluctuations in service user capacity and significant power differences are particular barriers. OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: We trialled a form of facilitated SDM that aimed to generate patients' treatment preferences in advance of a possible relapse. The 'Joint Crisis Plan' (JCP) intervention was trialled in four mental health trusts in England between 2008 and 2011. This qualitative study used grounded theory methods to analyse focus group and interview data to understand how stakeholders perceived the intervention and the barriers to SDM in the form of a JCP. RESULTS: Fifty service users with psychotic disorders and 45 clinicians participated in focus groups or interviews between February 2010 and November 2011. Results suggested four barriers to clinician engagement in the JCP: (i) ambivalence about care planning; (ii) perceptions that they were 'already doing SDM'; (iii) concerns regarding the clinical 'appropriateness of service users' choices'; and (iv) limited 'availability of service users' choices'. Service users reported barriers to SDM in routine practice, most of which were addressed by the JCP process. Barriers identified by clinicians led to their lack of constructive engagement in the process, undermining the service users' experience. CONCLUSIONS: Future work requires interventions targeted at the engagement of clinicians addressing their concerns about SDM. Particular strategies include organizational investment in implementation of service users' choices and directly training clinicians in SDM communication processes.
Authors: Claire Henderson; Jeffrey W Swanson; George Szmukler; Graham Thornicroft; Martin Zinkler Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Simone Farrelly; Helen Lester; Diana Rose; Max Birchwood; Max Marshall; Waquas Waheed; R Claire Henderson; George Szmukler; Graham Thornicroft Journal: Qual Health Res Date: 2015-01-12
Authors: S Farrelly; G Szmukler; C Henderson; M Birchwood; M Marshall; W Waheed; C Finnecy; G Thornicroft Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Dawn T Bounds; Dominka A Winiarski; Caitlin H Otwell; Valerie Tobin; Angela C Glover; Adrian Melendez; Niranjan S Karnik Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs Date: 2020-07-20
Authors: Andrew I Gumley; Simon Bradstreet; John Ainsworth; Stephanie Allan; Mario Alvarez-Jimenez; Maximillian Birchwood; Andrew Briggs; Sandra Bucci; Sue Cotton; Lidia Engel; Paul French; Reeva Lederman; Shôn Lewis; Matthew Machin; Graeme MacLennan; Hamish McLeod; Nicola McMeekin; Cathy Mihalopoulos; Emma Morton; John Norrie; Frank Reilly; Matthias Schwannauer; Swaran P Singh; Suresh Sundram; Andrew Thompson; Chris Williams; Alison Yung; Lorna Aucott; John Farhall; John Gleeson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2022-05 Impact factor: 4.106
Authors: Claire Henderson; Simone Farrelly; Paul Moran; Rohan Borschmann; Graham Thornicroft; Max Birchwood; The Crimson Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Margot Metz; Iman Elfeddali; Marjolein Veerbeek; Edwin de Beurs; Aartjan Beekman; Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 3.240