Two clinicians for one patient, is it worth it? Patients' perspective on receiving treatment from a pair of clinicians, in a psychiatric emergency and crisis unit.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Annals of General Psychiatry Pub Date : 2023-04-27 DOI:10.1186/s12991-023-00446-1
Caroline Dedeystère Pobelov, Orest Weber, Sonia Krenz, Yves Dorogi, Laurent Michaud
{"title":"Two clinicians for one patient, is it worth it? Patients' perspective on receiving treatment from a pair of clinicians, in a psychiatric emergency and crisis unit.","authors":"Caroline Dedeystère Pobelov,&nbsp;Orest Weber,&nbsp;Sonia Krenz,&nbsp;Yves Dorogi,&nbsp;Laurent Michaud","doi":"10.1186/s12991-023-00446-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the field of psychiatric crisis interventions, treatment is commonly provided by multidisciplinary teams in Western countries. However, empirical data on the processes involved in this type of intervention are lacking, in particular from a patient perspective. Our study aims to gain a better understanding of the patients' experience of a treatment setting provided by a pair of clinicians in a psychiatric emergency and crisis intervention unit. Patients' perspective could provide a broader understanding of its advantages (or disadvantages), as well as bring new insight on elements influencing patients' treatment adherence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted 12 interviews with former patients treated by a pair of clinicians. The participants' experience, explored with semi-structured questions on their views of the treatment setting, was analyzed by means of thematic analysis using an inductive approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of participants experienced this setting as advantageous. A broader comprehension of their issues is the benefit most often expressed. A minority experienced seeing two clinicians as disadvantageous (having to talk to several clinicians at a time, change interlocutors, repeat one's story). Participants attributed joint sessions (with both clinicians) mainly to clinical reasons and separate sessions (with one clinician at a time) mainly to logistical ones.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This qualitative study provides first insights into patients' experience of a setting including two clinicians providing emergency and crisis psychiatric care. The results show a perceived clinical gain of such a treatment setting for highly in crisis patients. However, further research is needed to evaluate the benefit of this setting, including the indication for joint or separate sessions as the patient's clinical course evolves.</p>","PeriodicalId":7942,"journal":{"name":"Annals of General Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10134636/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of General Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12991-023-00446-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In the field of psychiatric crisis interventions, treatment is commonly provided by multidisciplinary teams in Western countries. However, empirical data on the processes involved in this type of intervention are lacking, in particular from a patient perspective. Our study aims to gain a better understanding of the patients' experience of a treatment setting provided by a pair of clinicians in a psychiatric emergency and crisis intervention unit. Patients' perspective could provide a broader understanding of its advantages (or disadvantages), as well as bring new insight on elements influencing patients' treatment adherence.

Methods: We conducted 12 interviews with former patients treated by a pair of clinicians. The participants' experience, explored with semi-structured questions on their views of the treatment setting, was analyzed by means of thematic analysis using an inductive approach.

Results: The majority of participants experienced this setting as advantageous. A broader comprehension of their issues is the benefit most often expressed. A minority experienced seeing two clinicians as disadvantageous (having to talk to several clinicians at a time, change interlocutors, repeat one's story). Participants attributed joint sessions (with both clinicians) mainly to clinical reasons and separate sessions (with one clinician at a time) mainly to logistical ones.

Conclusions: This qualitative study provides first insights into patients' experience of a setting including two clinicians providing emergency and crisis psychiatric care. The results show a perceived clinical gain of such a treatment setting for highly in crisis patients. However, further research is needed to evaluate the benefit of this setting, including the indication for joint or separate sessions as the patient's clinical course evolves.

Abstract Image

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
一个病人两个医生,值得吗?病人的观点,接受治疗从一对临床医生,在精神科急诊和危机单元。
背景:在精神危机干预领域,西方国家通常由多学科团队提供治疗。然而,缺乏这种干预所涉及的过程的经验数据,特别是从患者的角度来看。我们的研究目的是为了更好地了解由一对临床医生在精神科急诊和危机干预单元提供的治疗环境中的患者体验。患者的角度可以更广泛地了解其优点(或缺点),并对影响患者治疗依从性的因素提供新的见解。方法:对两位临床医生治疗过的前患者进行了12次访谈。参与者的经验,以半结构化的问题探讨他们对治疗环境的看法,通过使用归纳方法的主题分析的方式进行分析。结果:大多数参与者认为这种设置是有利的。更广泛地理解他们的问题是最常表达的好处。少数人认为同时看到两个临床医生是不利的(必须同时与几个临床医生交谈,改变对话者,重复自己的故事)。参与者认为联合会议(与两位临床医生)主要是出于临床原因,而单独会议(一次与一位临床医生)主要是出于后勤原因。结论:这一定性研究提供了第一次洞察病人的设置经验,包括两个临床医生提供紧急和危机精神病学护理。结果表明,这种治疗环境对高度危重患者有明显的临床益处。然而,需要进一步的研究来评估这种设置的益处,包括随着患者临床病程的发展而进行联合或单独治疗的适应症。
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
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.70%
发文量
43
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of General Psychiatry considers manuscripts on all aspects of psychiatry, including neuroscience and psychological medicine. Both basic and clinical neuroscience contributions are encouraged. Annals of General Psychiatry emphasizes a biopsychosocial approach to illness and health and strongly supports and follows the principles of evidence-based medicine. As an open access journal, Annals of General Psychiatry facilitates the worldwide distribution of high quality psychiatry and mental health research. The journal considers submissions on a wide range of topics including, but not limited to, psychopharmacology, forensic psychiatry, psychotic disorders, psychiatric genetics, and mood and anxiety disorders.
期刊最新文献
Assessing suicidality in adult ADHD patients: prevalence and related factors : Suicidality in adult ADHD patients. Effectiveness of 8-week TReatment with vortioxetine on depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder patients with comorbid generalized anxiety disorder in UAE (TRUE). Management of schizophrenia and comorbid substance use disorders: expert review and guidance. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of depression: a bibliometrics and meta-analysis. What is the effect of lithium use on the amygdalar volume of adult patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder: a scoping review.
×
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