Constraints perceived by psychiatrists working in community mental health services. Development and pilot study of a novel instrument

Experiences, opinions and current policies on users' choice and change of the allocated primary mental health professional: a survey among directors of community mental health centers in the Emilia-Romagna region, Italy

Background

The subject of how the initial allocation of the primary mental health professional (PMHP) in community mental health services is made and the frequency and management of users’ requests to choose and/or change their allocated PMHPs has been scarcely investigated. The present paper is aimed at exploring the experiences and opinions of directors of community mental health centers (CMHC) on this topic.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted. Electronic ad hoc questionnaires with both multiple choice and open-ended questions were e-mailed to the institutional addresses of CMHC directors in the Emilia-Romagna Region (Northern Italy) with the consent of their heads of department and the Ethical Committee. Quantitative data were analysed by means of Microsoft Excel software and STATA 14.2 (College Station, TX), while the qualitative analysis was performed using the Nvivo12 software.

Results

Twenty-eight questionnaires were collected (response rate: 71.8%) that were equally distributed between males and females. For the initial PMHP allocation, casual allocation by “fixed-rota” was commonly performed (39.3%). Moreover, hope for a change of prescription by a different psychiatrist was the most frequent reason for users’ requests to change their PMHP. In two mental health departments only (Parma and Bologna), written guidelines to manage users’ requests of change of PMHP were available. In this context, most participants classified the explored topics as relevant and believed that written policies, especially if shared with users, could be useful.

Conclusions

In Emilia-Romagna CMHCs, neither users nor professionals were generally involved in the initial choice of the PMHP. Further national-level studies should be conducted in order to confirm this finding. Additionally, written and shared guidelines for managing users’ request to choose/change their PHMP may be useful.

Improving Therapeutic Relationships: Joint Crisis Planning for Individuals With Psychotic Disorders

Outcomes for individuals with psychosis remain far from acceptable. Recently, prominent psychiatrists have called for an improved understanding of the impact of social contexts, and how social contexts might influence the development and maintenance of mental health problems. A key social context for individuals with psychosis is the therapeutic relationship. As part of a trial of joint crisis planning in England, this qualitative study aimed to determine the mechanism through which joint crisis planning might affect the therapeutic relationship. Results suggest that routine processes in mental health care are affected by policy and organizational requirements for risk mitigation-aspects that undermine person-centered approaches. In contrast, strong therapeutic relationships are characterized by individualized care and reliable and respectful treatment. The Joint Crisis Plan intervention partially succeeded in reducing contextual influences on routine role enactments, facilitating the demonstration of respect and improving the therapeutic relationship.

Therapeutic relationships between mental health service users with psychotic disorders and their clinicians: a critical interpretive synthesis

Individuals with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders remain among the most marginalised in our communities. There has been increasing criticism of the current state of clinical treatment of such individuals as technological developments in medication provide little, if any, improvement in the lived experiences of mental health service users (SUs). In this context, there is a call for a re-orientation away from medication in the treatment of 'common factors' such as the therapeutic relationship (TR). The TR is well researched in psychotherapy settings; however, the components of beneficial TRs in the treatment of individuals with psychotic disorders are poorly understood. A critical interpretive synthesis was conducted to determine the current understanding of the TRs between individuals with psychotic disorders and their clinicians in community case management settings. A search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE and Social Policy and Practice Databases and grey literature between 1990 and 2011 identified 13 papers to be included in the synthesis. Three key components of beneficial TRs were identified: mutual trust, demonstration of mutual respect and shared decision-making. However, the synthesis revealed that such interactions are difficult to achieve in routine practice. The main barrier identified was a lack of clarity regarding the goal of interactions, which in turn created stakeholders with poorly defined roles and possibly oppositional needs. In this context of ambiguity, clinicians appear to de-emphasise interactions characteristic of beneficial TRs, and prioritise interactions that protect the SU and themselves in the case of a relapse. Structural symbolic interactionism is used to interpret these findings. For interactions characteristic of TRs to be prioritised in the treatment of individuals with psychotic disorders, a clearer evidence base for the importance of the TR and a clear statement of purpose of treatment are required.