Patients' and health professionals' perspectives regarding shared decision making in the psychiatric inpatient setting – A multiple qualitative case study

Caroline Gurtner , Jos M.G.A. Schols , Christa Lohrmann , Sabine Hahn
{"title":"Patients' and health professionals' perspectives regarding shared decision making in the psychiatric inpatient setting – A multiple qualitative case study","authors":"Caroline Gurtner ,&nbsp;Jos M.G.A. Schols ,&nbsp;Christa Lohrmann ,&nbsp;Sabine Hahn","doi":"10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Shared decision-making is one promising approach to promoting recovery and person-centred care but seems challenging for implementation in clinical practice. This study aimed to explore how patients and health professionals experience shared decision-making and its facilitators and barriers.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A multiple qualitative case study design was chosen, using a constant comparative method. Multiple data sources were used, including individual interviews, observation, document analysis and a focus group.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Through first a within-case analysis and then second a cross-case analysis, four patient profiles and their potential for shared decision-making were constructed. The results indicate that in the daily routine of the psychiatric inpatient setting different forms of decision making are used, even though health professionals advocate shared decision-making as the favored approach. Patients also have varying expectations and perceptions regarding shared decision-making, which is reflected in the degree of their involvement.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Shared decision-making could be enhanced in the future by a more proactive communication style and the proactive provision of information on the part of health professionals, in order to enhance patient participation in decision-making.</div></div><div><h3>Innovation</h3><div>The study identified different forms of decision-making within the acute psychiatric inpatient setting, highlighting the gap between the advocated SDM approach and its practical implementation. This divergence is a key aspect, as it underlines the complexity of implementing SDM in real clinical settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74407,"journal":{"name":"PEC innovation","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100352"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PEC innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224001006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Shared decision-making is one promising approach to promoting recovery and person-centred care but seems challenging for implementation in clinical practice. This study aimed to explore how patients and health professionals experience shared decision-making and its facilitators and barriers.

Methods

A multiple qualitative case study design was chosen, using a constant comparative method. Multiple data sources were used, including individual interviews, observation, document analysis and a focus group.

Results

Through first a within-case analysis and then second a cross-case analysis, four patient profiles and their potential for shared decision-making were constructed. The results indicate that in the daily routine of the psychiatric inpatient setting different forms of decision making are used, even though health professionals advocate shared decision-making as the favored approach. Patients also have varying expectations and perceptions regarding shared decision-making, which is reflected in the degree of their involvement.

Conclusion

Shared decision-making could be enhanced in the future by a more proactive communication style and the proactive provision of information on the part of health professionals, in order to enhance patient participation in decision-making.

Innovation

The study identified different forms of decision-making within the acute psychiatric inpatient setting, highlighting the gap between the advocated SDM approach and its practical implementation. This divergence is a key aspect, as it underlines the complexity of implementing SDM in real clinical settings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
病人和医护人员对精神病住院患者共同决策的看法--一项多重定性案例研究
目的共同决策是促进康复和以人为本的护理的一种有前途的方法,但在临床实践中实施起来似乎具有挑战性。本研究旨在探讨患者和医护人员如何体验共同决策,以及其促进因素和障碍。研究方法:本研究选择了多重定性案例研究设计,并采用了恒定比较法。研究使用了多种数据来源,包括个人访谈、观察、文件分析和焦点小组。结果通过首先进行病例内部分析,然后进行交叉分析,构建了四种病人特征及其共同决策的可能性。结果表明,在精神科住院病人的日常生活中,尽管医护人员主张共同决策是最受欢迎的方法,但他们还是采用了不同的决策形式。患者对共同决策的期望和看法也各不相同,这反映在他们的参与程度上。创新该研究发现了急诊精神病住院环境中的不同决策形式,凸显了所倡导的 SDM 方法与其实际执行之间的差距。这种差异是一个关键方面,因为它强调了在实际临床环境中实施 SDM 的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PEC innovation
PEC innovation Medicine and Dentistry (General)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
147 days
期刊最新文献
Measuring professionals' attitudes toward persistent somatic symptoms: Development, validation, and reliability of the professionals' Attitude to Persistent Somatic Symptoms Questionnaire (PAPSS) Tech + touch: A pilot study to facilitate access to health information technology for Spanish-speaking parents Single-encounter elicitation framework for diagnostic excellence patient-reported measures: SEE-Dx-PRM The effectiveness of integrating making every contact count into an undergraduate medical curriculum How often are patients recording their healthcare consultations in Australia and why? An online survey
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1