Patient and clinician communication practices during the DSM-5 cultural formulation interview field trial.

Cultural psychiatrists and medical anthropologists have collaborated to help clinicians screen for culture-related issues in patient explanatory models of illness and to enhance the clinical processes of engagement, diagnosis, and treatment planning. This effort prioritises patient perspectives on suffering and healing to counter the trend of symptom-based interviews which assume biologically determined models of mental disorders. The 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes the Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI), a semi-structured questionnaire for eliciting patient explanatory models. This paper analyses specific linguistic meanings and practices that could account for patient perceptions of improved rapport with clinicians, clinician perceptions of improving information gathering, and cultural models of health and illness during the DSM-5 field trial piloting the CFI. Twenty-seven audiotapes were analysed through the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS), a standardised method for examining medical interviews based on ethnographic studies of small-group communication. After an introduction with procedural and reassurance statements to orient communication, the CFI's open-ended questions elicited patients' opinions on interpersonal, environmental, and biomedical information. Clinicians made facilitation and activation statements for patients to speak more and informed patients about what to expect. Patients constructed cultural models of illness that weaved interpersonal, environmental, and biomedical information. Clinicians and patients made rapport-building statements to each other. A RIAS-derived patient-centred score indicates that CFI sessions addressed patient concerns. Our work offers a way to analyse the discursive construction of culture in health settings and patient-centredness through detailed examinations of linguistic meanings and practices.

Adoption of the National CLAS Standards by State Mental Health Agencies: A Nationwide Policy Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study reports the extent to which states have adopted the national culturally and linguistically appropriate services (CLAS) standards. METHODS: Officials from public mental health agencies in the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico were contacted between January and June 2016 to obtain information about adoption of CLAS standards in current policies. Each policy was coded through thematic analysis to determine its correspondence with any of the 14 national CLAS standards, which are grouped into three domains. RESULTS: Officials from 47 states and territories (90%) responded. Eight states (17%) reported adopting all national CLAS standards. Ten (23%) had adopted no CLAS policies, five (12%) had adopted policies under one domain, three (7%) under two domains, and 25 (58%) under all three domains. CONCLUSIONS: Most states do not have policies that meet all CLAS standards, raising questions about how CLAS standards should be adopted.

The meanings of cultural competence in mental health: an exploratory focus group study with patients, clinicians, and administrators.

Cultural competence training is mandatory in the United States of America to alleviate minority health disparities though few studies have examined perceptions across stakeholders. We conducted separate focus groups with patients, clinicians, and administrators from the psychiatry department at one community hospital and compared responses to hospital policies. Stakeholders defined cultural competence through group-based or person-centered traits despite policies recommended person-centered approaches. Administrators and clinicians named clinician techniques for psycho-education whereas patients named these techniques for enlistment in treatment planning as equals. All groups named patient cultural views and institutional challenges as barriers to care, but only patients and administrators additionally named clinician biases as possible barriers. We discuss these discrepant perceptions and possible solutions to improve research, practice, and policy on cultural competence in mental health.