Codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS): a protocol for integrating realist evaluation and an engineering-based systems approach.

INTRODUCTION: Transition following discharge from mental health hospital is high risk in terms of relapse, readmission and suicide. Discharge planning supports transition and reduces risk. It is a complex activity involving interacting systemic elements. The codesigning a systemic discharge intervention for inpatient mental health settings (MINDS) study aims to improve the process for people being discharged, their carers/supporters and staff who work in mental health services, by understanding, co-designing and evaluating implementation of a systemic approach to discharge planning. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The MINDS study integrates realist research and an engineering-informed systems approach across three stages. Stage 1 applies realist review and evaluation using a systems approach to develop programme theories of discharge planning. Stage 2 uses an Engineering Better Care framework to codesign a novel systemic discharge intervention, which will be subjected to process and economic evaluation in stage 3. The programme theories and resulting care planning approach will be refined throughout the study ready for a future clinical trial. MINDS is co-led by an expert by experience, with researchers with lived experience co-leading each stage. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: MINDS stage 1 has received ethical approval from Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds (Research Ethics Committee (22/YH/0122). Findings from MINDS will be disseminated via high-impact journal publications and conference presentations, including those with service user and mental health professional audiences. We will establish routes to engage with public and service user communities and National Health Service professionals including blogs, podcasts and short videos. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: MINDS is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR 133013) https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR133013. The realist review protocol is registered on PROSPERO. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021293255.

Barriers and Enablers to Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Medication Management: A Qualitative Investigation of Clinician and Service Users' Views.

Shared decisionmaking (SDM) is a recommended health communication approach in mental health settings. Yet, implementation of SDM in psychiatric consultations discussing medication management is challenging. Insufficient attention has been given to examine the views of both clinicians and service users together about the experiences of SDM in psychiatric medication management. The purpose of this paper is to examine the views of service users, community psychiatric nurses, and psychiatrists about enablers and barriers of SDM. A thematic analysis of 30 semi structured interviews with service users, psychiatrists, and community psychiatric nurses, in a community mental health team in the UK, was conducted. A service user advisory group was involved in all phases of the research cycle, including data collection, analysis, and dissemination. The results offer a detailed contextualized account of how medication decisions are made. For psychiatrists and service user participants SDM is seen as a way of enhancing service users' engagement in and control over treatment decisions. While psychiatrists value the transactional benefits of SDM, service user participants and psychiatric nurses conceptualize SDM as a long-term endeavor embedded within therapeutic partnerships. For service users these partnerships mitigate acknowledged problems of feeling unable to be fully involved during times of crisis. This study identified a range of barriers and facilitators to SDM concerning psychiatric medications from the lived experience of service users and the professional experience of clinicians. Furthermore, it indicates new potential intervention points to support SDM in psychiatric medication decisions.

Corrigendum: Barriers and Enablers to Shared Decision Making in Psychiatric Medication Management: A Qualitative Investigation of Clinician and Service Users' Views.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.678005.].

It Does Take Two to Tango: An Applied Conversation Analysis of Interactions between a Psychiatrist and Service-Users Discussing Medication.

Decisions concerning psychiatric medication are complex and often involve a protracted process of trial and error. We examine three recorded meetings for power-sharing and power-taking discourse strategies employed by both the psychiatrist and mental health service-user, when discussing psychiatric medication. We identify examples of good practice, as well as missed opportunities to engage service-users in co-constructed dialogue, and highlight that participation and active involvement in decisions is not best seen as a fixed pattern, but is a complex interplay that changes both between and within interactions.

PROGRESS: the PROMISE governance framework to decrease coercion in mental healthcare.

Reducing physical intervention in mental health inpatient care is a global priority. It is extremely distressing both to patients and staff. PROactive Management of Integrated Services and Environments (PROMISE) was developed within Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT) to bring about culture change to decrease coercion in care. This study evaluates the changes in physical intervention numbers and patient experience metrics and proposes an easy-to-adopt and adapt governance framework for complex interventions. PROMISE was based on three core values of: providing a caring response to all distress; courage to challenge the status quo; and coproduction of novel solutions. It sought to transform daily front-line interactions related to risk-based restrictive practice that often leads to physical interventions. PROactive Governance of Recovery Settings and Services, a five-step governance framework (Report, Reflect, Review, Rethink and Refresh), was developed in an iterative and organic fashion to oversee the improvement journey and effectively translate information into knowledge, learning and actions. Overall physical interventions reduced from 328 to 241and210 across consecutive years (2014, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, respectively). Indeed, the 2016-2017 total would have been further reduced to 126 were it not for the perceived substantial care needs of one patient. Prone restraints reduced from 82 to 32 (2015-2016 and 2016-2017, respectively). During 2016-2017, each ward had a continuous 3-month period of no restraints and 4 months without prone restrains. Patient experience surveys (n=4591) for 2014-2017 rated overall satisfaction with care at 87%. CPFT reported fewer physical interventions and maintained high patient experience scores when using a five-pronged governance approach. It has a summative function to define where a team or an organisation is relative to goals and is formative in setting up the next steps relating to action, learning and future planning.

Shared decision making for psychiatric medication management: beyond the micro-social.

BACKGROUND: Mental health care has lagged behind other health-care domains in developing and applying shared decision making (SDM) for treatment decisions. This is despite compatibilities with ideals of modern mental health care such as self-management and recovery-oriented practice, and growing policy-level interest. Psychiatric medication is a mainstay of mental health treatment, but there are known problems with prescribing practices, and service users report feeling uninvolved in medication decisions and concerned about adverse effects. SDM has potential to produce better tailoring of psychiatric medication to individuals' needs. OBJECTIVES: This conceptual review argues that several aspects of mental health care that differ from other health-care contexts (e.g. forms of coercion, questions about service users' insight and disempowerment) may impact on processes and possibilities for SDM. It is therefore problematic to uncritically import models of SDM developed in other health-care contexts. We argue that decision making for psychiatric medication is better understood in a broader way that moves beyond the micro-social focus of a medical consultation. Contextualizing specific medication-related consultations within longer term relationships, and broader service systems enables recognition of the multiple processes, actors and agendas that shape how psychiatric medication is prescribed, managed and used, and which may facilitate or impede SDM. CONCLUSION: A broad conceptualization of decision making for psychiatric medication that moves beyond the micro-social can account for why SDM in this domain remains a rarity. It has both conceptual and practical utility for evaluating research evidence, identifying future research priorities and highlighting fruitful ways of developing and implementing SDM in mental health care.