General practitioners' perceptions of dealing with patients with pressured speech: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Empathetic listening can be particularly challenging with patients presenting pressured speech, while time pressure and costs limit practitioners' availability. We aimed to explore general practitioners' (GPs') experiences when encountering a patient with pressured speech without pathological syndrome. METHODS: Using a thematic analysis method, 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs purposively sampled in Ile-de-France region. RESULTS: Three themes emerged. First, misgivings were aroused when meeting a patient with pressured speech, including frustration, displeasure, and a struggle to maintain focus. Second, huge efforts were needed to adhere to the appropriate clinical reasoning and care for these patients who need more time and energy. The very definition of this condition varies from one clinician to another, and for some, psychiatric conditions were systematically associated. Third, implementation of specific strategies was required to adjust to these patients: trying to create distance with the patient, to organize a framework in which the patient with pressured speech can express him or herself, and even strategies to increase GPs' availability. CONCLUSION: The time and energy required to provide adequate care for patients presenting with pressured speech make it quite challenging, and this builds up pressure in the waiting room. But when medical demands take this form, there is a risk that clinicians will reject the patient or refer early to mental health services, leading to growing feelings of abandonment, the neglect of organic issues, and medical nomadism. Initial and continuing medical training focussing on advanced communication skills and multifocal approaches can foster long-term follow-up.

Effectiveness of simulation in psychiatry for nursing students, nurses and nurse practitioners: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Mental disorders constitute one of the main causes of disease and disability worldwide. While nurses are often at the frontline of mental health care, they have limited access to dedicated psychiatric training opportunities. Simulation training may foster the development of the appropriate competencies required when supporting people with mental disorders. To evaluate the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry for nursing students, nurses and nurse practitioners. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Eight electronic databases, trial registries, key journals and reference lists of selected studies were searched from inception to August 20, 2020 without language restriction. REVIEW METHODS: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled studies and single group pre/post studies. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 was used for randomized controlled study appraisal, and the Medical Education Research Study Quality instrument was completed for all other studies. Meta-analysis was restricted to randomized controlled studies. The other studies were synthesized narratively. The main outcomes were based on Kirkpatrick levels. RESULTS: A total of 118 studies (6738 participants) were found. Interventions included simulated patients (n = 55), role-plays (n = 40), virtual reality (n = 12), manikins (n = 9) and voice simulations (n = 9). Meta-analyses based on 11 randomized controlled studies found a significant large effect size on skills at immediate post-test for simulation compared with active control; and a small and medium effect size on learners' attitudes for simulation compared with inactive control, at immediate post-test and at three-month follow-up respectively. Three quarters of non-randomized controlled studies and pre/post-tests assessing attitudes and skills showed significant differences, and three quarters of participants in randomized controlled studies and pre/post-tests showed significant differences in behaviours. Among the few studies assessing people with mental health outcomes, almost all reported significant differences. CONCLUSION: These findings support the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatric nursing throughout professional development grades, despite heterogeneity in methods and simulation interventions.

Simulation in psychiatry for medical doctors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Most medical doctors are likely to work with patients experiencing mental health conditions. However, educational opportunities for medical doctors to achieve professional development in the field of psychiatry are often limited. Simulation training in psychiatry may be a useful tool to foster this development. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry for medical students, postgraduate trainees and medical doctors. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched eight electronic databases and trial registries up to 31 August 2018. We manually searched key journals and the reference lists of selected studies. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled studies and single group pre- and post-test studies. Our main outcomes were based on Kirkpatrick levels. We included data only from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using random-effects models. RESULTS: From 46 571 studies identified, we selected 163 studies and combined 27 RCTs. Interventions included simulation by role-play (n = 69), simulated patients (n = 72), virtual reality (n = 22), manikin (n = 5) and voice simulation (n = 2). Meta-analysis found significant differences at immediate post-tests for simulation compared with active and inactive control groups for attitudes (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.73 [I2  = 0.0%] and SMD = 0.28, 95% CI 0.04-0.53 [I2  = 52.0%], respectively), skills (SMD = 1.37, 95% CI 0.56-2.18 [I2  = 93.0%] and SMD = 1.49, 95% CI 0.39-2.58 [I2  = 93.0%], respectively), knowledge (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI 0.57-1.88 [I2  = 0.0%] and SMD = 0.72, 95% CI 0.14-1.30 [I2  = 80.0%], respectively), and behaviours (SMD = 1.07, 95% CI 0.49-1.65 [I2  = 68.0%] and SMD = 0.45, 95% CI 0.11-0.79 [I2  = 41.0%], respectively). Significant differences in terms of patient benefit and doctors' behaviours and skills were found at the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Despite heterogeneity in methods and simulation interventions, our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of simulation training in psychiatry training.

Simulation training in suicide risk assessment and intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Suicide is a major cause of preventable death worldwide. Adequate training in risk assessment and intervention is key to suicide prevention. The use of simulation (role plays, simulated patients, virtual reality…) for practical training is a promising tool in mental health. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of simulation training in suicide risk assessment and intervention for healthcare professionals and gatekeepers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in Medline and PsycINFO up to 31 July 2021 of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials, and pre/post-test studies. RCTs were furthermore included in a meta-analysis. We assessed the methodological quality of all studies with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 for RCTs. Primary outcomes were changes in Kirkpatrick criteria: attitudes, skills, knowledge, behaviors, and patient outcomes. RESULTS: We included 96 articles representing 43,656 participants. Most pre/post-test (n = 65) and non-randomized controlled (n = 14) studies showed significant improvement in attitudes, skills, knowledge, and behaviors. The meta-analysis of 11 RCTs showed positive changes in attitudes immediately after training and at 2-4 months post-training; in self-perceived skills at 6 months post-training; but not in factual knowledge. Studies assessing benefits for patients are still limited. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of methodological designs, interventions, and trained populations combined with a limited number of RCTs and studies on patients' outcomes limit the strength of the evidence. However, preliminary findings suggest that simulation is promising for practical training in suicidal crisis intervention and should be further studied.

Simulation Training in Psychiatry for Medical Education: A Review.

Despite recognised benefits of Simulation-Based Education (SBE) in healthcare, specific adaptations required within psychiatry have slowed its adoption. This article aims to discuss conceptual and practical features of SBE in psychiatry that may support or limit its development, so as to encourage clinicians and educators to consider the implementation of SBE in their practice. SBE took off with the aviation industry and has been steadily adopted in clinical education, alongside role play and patient educators, across many medical specialities. Concurrently, healthcare has shifted towards patient-centred approaches and clinical education has recognised the importance of reflective learning and teaching centred on learners' experiences. SBE is particularly well-suited to promoting a holistic approach to care, reflective learning, emotional awareness in interactions and learning, cognitive reframing, and co-construction of knowledge. These features present an opportunity to enhance education throughout the healthcare workforce, and align particularly well to psychiatric education, where interpersonal and relational dimensions are at the core of clinical skills. Additionally, SBE provides a strategic opportunity for people with lived experience of mental disorders to be directly involved in clinical education. However, tenacious controversies have questioned the adequacy of SBE in the psychiatric field, possibly limiting its adoption. The ability of simulated patients (SPs) to portray complex and contradictory cognitive, psychological and emotional states has been questioned. The validity of SBE to develop a genuine empathetic understanding of patients, to facilitate a comprehensive multiaxial diagnostic formulation, or to develop flexible interpersonal skills has been criticised. Finally, SBE's relevance to developing complex psychotherapeutic skills is much debated, while issues such as symptom induction in SPs or patients involvement raise ethical dilemmas. These controversies can be addressed through adequate evidence, robust learning design, and high standards of practice. Well-designed simulated scenarios can promote a positive consideration of mental disorders and complex clinical skills. Shared guidelines and scenario libraries for simulation can be developed, with expert psychiatrists, patients and students involvement, to offer SPs and educators a solid foundation to develop training. Beyond scenario design, the nuances and complexities in mental healthcare are also duly acknowledged during the debriefing phases, providing a crucial opportunity to reflect on complex interpersonal skills or the role of emotions in clinicians' behaviour. Considered recruitment and support of SPs by clinical educators can help to maintain psychological safety and manage ethical issues. The holistic and reflexive nature of SBE aligns to the rich humanistic tradition nurtured within psychiatry and medicine, presenting the opportunity to expand the use of SBE to support a range of clinical skills and workforce competencies required in psychiatry.