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

Decision-making about changing medications across transitions of care: Opportunities for enhanced patient and family engagement

BACKGROUND

Older patients often have complex medication regimens, which change as they move across transitions of care. Engagement of older patients and families in making medication decisions across transitions of care is important for safe and high-quality medication management.

AIMS

To explore decision-making between health professionals, older patients and families about medication changes across transitions of care, and to examine how patient and family engagement is enacted in the process of decision-making in relation to these medication changes.

METHODS

A focused ethnographic design was undertaken with semi-structured interviews, observations, and reflective focus groups or interviews. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on transcribed data. The study was undertaken at a public teaching acute care hospital and a public teaching community hospital in Australia.

RESULTS

In all, 182 older patients, 44 family members and 94 health professionals participated. Four themes were conceptualised from the data: different customs and routines, medication challenges, health professional interactions, and patient and family involvement. Environments had differences in their customs and routines, which increased the potential for medication delays or the substitution of unintended medications. Medication challenges included health professionals assuming that patients and families did not need information about regularly prescribed medications. Patients and families were informed about new medications after health professionals had already made decisions to prescribe these medications. Health professionals tended to work in disciplinary silos, and they had views about their role in interacting with patients and families. Patients and families were expected to take the initiative to participate in decision-making about medication changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient movements across transitions of care can create complex and chaotic medication management situations, which lacks transparency, especially for older patients and their families. A greater focus on pre-emptive and planned discussions about medication changes will contribute to improving patient and family involvement in medication decision-making.

A realist review of medication optimisation of community dwelling service users with serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

Severe mental illness (SMI) incorporates schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, non-organic psychosis, personality disorder or any other severe and enduring mental health illness. Medication, particularly antipsychotics and mood stabilisers are the main treatment options. Medication optimisation is a hallmark of medication safety, characterised by the use of collaborative, person-centred approaches. There is very little published research describing medication optimisation with people living with SMI.

OBJECTIVE

Published literature and two stakeholder groups were employed to answer: What works for whom and in what circumstances to optimise medication use with people living with SMI in the community?

METHODS

A five-stage realist review was co-conducted with a lived experience group of individuals living with SMI and a practitioner group caring for individuals with SMI. An initial programme theory was developed. A formal literature search was conducted across eight bibliographic databases, and literature were screened for relevance to programme theory refinement. In total 60 papers contributed to the review. 42 papers were from the original database search with 18 papers identified from additional database searches and citation searches conducted based on stakeholder recommendations.

RESULTS

Our programme theory represents a continuum from a service user's initial diagnosis of SMI to therapeutic alliance development with practitioners, followed by mutual exchange of information, shared decision-making and medication optimisation. Accompanying the programme theory are 11 context-mechanism-outcome configurations that propose evidence-informed contextual factors and mechanisms that either facilitate or impede medication optimisation. Two mid-range theories highlighted in this review are supported decision-making and trust formation.

CONCLUSIONS

Supported decision-making and trust are foundational to overcoming stigma and establishing 'safety' and comfort between service users and practitioners. Avenues for future research include the influence of stigma and equity across cultural and ethnic groups with individuals with SMI; and use of trained supports, such as peer support workers.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021280980.

Shared decision making and associated factors among patients with psychotic disorders: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making is a process where patients and clinicians collaborate to make treatment choices based on the patients' preferences and best available evidence. The implementation of shared decision making remains limited for patients with psychotic disorders despite being recommended at policy level, being advocated as ethical right and wanted by the patient's. A barrier to implementation that is often mentioned is reduced decision-making capacity among patients. The challenges of implementing shared decision making highlights a need for more knowledge on shared decision making for these patients. Moreover, the association between patient-related characteristics and shared decision making is unclear, and further research have been suggested. More knowledge of factors associated with involvement in shared decision making can enhance understanding and help to empower patients in the decision-making process. The current study examined the extent of reported shared decision making among patients with a psychotic disorder in mental health care and factors associated with shared decision making.

METHODS

This study included 305 participants with a psychotic disorder from 39 clinical inpatient and outpatient sites across Norway. Shared decision making was assessed using the CollaboRATE survey. A linear mixed model was estimated to assess characteristics associated with shared decision making scores.

RESULTS

The CollaboRATE mean score was 6.3 (ranging from 0 to 9), the top score was 14.1% and increased global satisfaction with services was significantly associated with a higher level of shared decision making (regression coefficient 0.27, 95% confidence interval (0.23; 0.32), p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The low top score shows that few patients felt that they received the highest possible quality of shared decision making, indicating that many patients found room for improvement. This suggests that services for patients with psychotic disorders should be designed to give them a greater role in decision making. Shared decision making might play a key role in mental health care, ensuring that patients with psychotic disorders are satisfied with the services provided.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03271242, date of registration: 5 Sept. 2017.

The role of pharmacists in supporting service users to optimise antipsychotic medication

Pharmacists have a contribution to make in improving optimising medication use for people on antipsychotic medication. The rates of prescribing antipsychotics have increased in England with an 18% rise from 2015 to 2020. People on antipsychotic medication are not treated as equal partners in conversations about their medications. This can leave people to make decisions about their antipsychotic medications without input from their prescribers which can have significant consequences for individuals. Involving people in the decision-making process, as experts on their own condition, has the potential to improve treatment outcomes. The evidence suggests that involving pharmacists in supporting people with serious mental illnesses will lead to improved clinical outcomes. Key areas for pharmacist involvement are providing information, education and counselling on antipsychotic medication and the side effects and reducing polypharmacy especially when antipsychotics are prescribed off license.

Experiencing (Shared) Decision Making: Results from a Qualitative Study of People with Mental Illness and Their Family Members

(1) Background: There is a fundamental shift in healthcare toward shared decision making (SDM). This study explores SDM from the perspective of individuals affected by mental illness and their family members and investigates factors which promote and hinder the process. (2) Methods: We conducted N = 15 telephone interviews (n = 4 adults affected by mental illness, n = 5 family members, n = 6 both applicable, the majority reporting experiences with affective and anxiety disorders). Data were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed according to procedures established by Mayring. (3) Results: Individuals affected by mental illness and their family members have a strong desire to be involved in treatment decisions and to participate in finding a diagnosis. Often these stakeholders are denied the opportunity to participate; sometimes enabling behaviors impede participation. The stigmatization of mental illnesses is a major barrier. There are also structural barriers to SDM within the healthcare system. Peer support, self-help associations, and psychosocial counseling services are important to empowering individuals and promoting SDM. (4) Conclusions: SDM has the potential to improve the quality of mental healthcare. Barriers can be mitigated and new approaches for interventions in the psychiatric sector have been identified. This study has also shown the importance of understanding SDM as a process that should begin at the diagnostic phase.

Patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making about treatment: A scoping review of the qualitative literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM) about treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies. We searched for literature across seven databases until March 2022, and included qualitative studies that focused on associations between patient-related characteristics and SDM about treatment in adults. We analyzed studies using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5948 articles, of which 70 were included. We identified many different patient-related characteristics, which we grouped into four categories related to: (1) the individual who is facing the decision, (2) the decision, (3) the relationship between the patient and the clinician and others involved in the decision, and (4) the healthcare context.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies report a variety of patient-related characteristics that may affect patient involvement in SDM. Amongst others, patients may need to feel informed, to understand their role in SDM, and be able to communicate. Involvement may be challenging with characteristics such as perceived time pressure, poor patient-clinician relationships, emotional distress, and severe illness.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to truly involve patients in SDM, we might need to focus on characteristics such as patient emotions and relationship building, besides information provision and values clarification.

Trends, challenges, and priorities for shared decision making in mental health: The first umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a health communication model promoting patient-centered care that has not been routinely utilized in mental health. Inconsistent definitions, models, measurement tools, and lack of sufficient evidence for the effectiveness of SDM interventions are potential contributors to the limited use of SDM in mental health.

AIMS

(1) Provide the first systematic analysis of global development trends and challenges of SDM research; (2) clarify the meaning, role, and measurement of SDM in mental health; (3) create a theoretical framework for key effective SDM components to guide future development and implementation of SDM interventions.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was conducted in CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo. Included reviews focused on SDM interventions for prevention and/or treatment of mental illness in adults. A narrative synthesis was performed to capture the range of interventions, populations, measurement tools, comparisons, and outcomes.

RESULTS

10 systematic reviews of SDM in mental health were included with 100 nested studies spanning from 2006 to 2020. All reviews focused on dyadic and psychopharmacological decision-making. Primary outcomes of SDM in mental health interventions include treatment satisfaction, medication adherence, symptom severity, quality of life, and hospital readmissions. Participant-related factors unique to SDM in mental health, such as stigma and mental capacity, were not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The current landscape of SDM in mental health is overwhelmingly disconnected from the needs and experiences of potential end-users; clients, clinicians, and family members. Most SDM interventions and tools were adapted from physical health and are mainly geared to psychopharmacological decision-making. The SDM in Mental Health Framework (SDM-MH), developed here, expands the scope of decisions to non-psychopharmacological discussions, diversifies the pool of SDM participants and settings, and offers potential primary target outcomes of SDM in mental health to reduce heterogeneity across studies.

Psychotropic medication use in people living with severe and persistent mental illness in the Australian community: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Psychotropic polypharmacy and high-dose prescribing may play a role in therapy, however, with associated risks. The aim of this study was to describe current prescribing practices and use of four psychotropic medication groups (antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilisers and benzodiazepines), focusing on polypharmacy (across and within groups) and high-dose prescribing in adults experiencing severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI) in the Australian community.

METHODS

318 people taking psychotropic medication for SPMI had a medication review undertaken by a community pharmacist. Participants were recruited as part of an RCT from three Australian states/territories between September 2020-July 2021. All psychotropic medication and daily doses were recorded and reviewed for alignment with current clinical guidelines. Univariate and multiple logistic regression models investigated factors associated with antipsychotic, antidepressant, and mood stabiliser polypharmacy, and antipsychotic and antidepressant high-dose therapy. Variables included age, gender, geographic location, self- reported mental illness(es), hospital admission(s) in previous 6-months and prescriber type.

RESULTS

806 psychotropic medications were prescribed for the 318 participants. Mood stabiliser polypharmacy was recorded in 19.0% of participants prescribed mood stabilisers; antipsychotic polypharmacy in 18.4% of participants prescribed antipsychotics; antidepressant polypharmacy in 11.3% of those prescribed antidepressants; and three participants (5.1%) were prescribed two benzodiazepines concurrently. Almost 18.6% of the cohort was receiving high-dose treatment; 18 participants were prescribed high-dose antipsychotics and 39 high-dose antidepressants, with two participants prescribed both. Adjusted logistic regression for polypharmacy found male gender, psychiatrist as sole prescriber, or multiple prescribers, were associated with antipsychotic polypharmacy. The adjusted model for high-dose therapy found psychiatrist as sole prescriber was significantly associated with antipsychotic and antidepressant high-dose prescribing.

CONCLUSION

Psychotropic polypharmacy was common in this community cohort experiencing SPMI. Whilst polypharmacy is not always inappropriate, it is a complex construct with potential benefits alongside potential risks. Benefits and harms need to be balanced however this practice is not supported by clear guidance to assist health practitioners. This study highlights the important need for regular medication reviews and strengthened communication between consumers and all healthcare professionals involved in community mental health care, to support safe and effective use of psychotropic medications.

Experiences of shared decision making among patients with psychotic disorders in Norway: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process where the patient and the health professional collaborate to make decisions based on both the patient's preferences and the best available evidence. Patients with psychotic disorders are less involved in making decisions than they would like. More knowledge of these patients' experiences of SDM may improve implementation. The study aim was to describe and explore experiences of SDM among patients with psychotic disorders in mental health care.

METHODS

Individual interviews were conducted with ten persons with a psychotic disorder. They were service users of two community mental health centres. The transcribed material was analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Four-fifths of the participants in this study found that they received insufficient information about their health situation and treatment options. All participants experienced that only one kind of treatment was often presented, which was usually medication. Although the study found that different degrees of involvement were practised, two thirds of the participants had little impact on choices to be made. This was despite the fact that they wanted to participate and felt capable of participating, even during periods of more severe illness. The participants described how important it was that SDM in psychosis was based on a trusting relationship, but stated that it took time to establish such a relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

This study with ten participants indicates that patients with psychotic disorders experienced that they were not allowed to participate as much as they wanted to and believed they were capable of. Some patients were involved, but to a lesser degree than in SDM. More and better tailored information communicated within a trusting relationship is needed to provide psychotic patients with a better basis for active involvement in decisions about their health care.

Co-production development of a decision support tool for peers and service users to choose technologies to support recovery

Peer support specialists (i.e., lay interventionists representing one of the fastest-growing mental health workforce) are increasingly using technologies to support individuals with mental health challenges between clinical encounters. The use of technology by peers has been significantly increased During COVID-19. Despite the wide array of technologies available, there is no framework designed specifically for peer support specialists and service users to select technologies to support their personal recovery. The objective of the study was to develop a Decision-Support Tool for Peer Support Specialists and Service Users to facilitate shared decision-making when choosing technologies to support personal recovery. The study used an iterative co-production process, including item formulation and a series of group cognitive interviews with peer support specialists and service users (n=9; n=9, n=4). The total sample included 22 participants: peer support specialists (n=18, 81.8%) and service users (n=4, 18.2%). The final version of the Decision-Support Tool for Peer Support Specialists and Service Users (D-SPSS), includes 8 domains: (1) privacy and security; (2) cost; (3) usability; (4) accessibility; (5) inclusion and equity; (6) recovery principles; (7) personalized for service users' needs; and (8) device set-up. Our study found that involving peer support specialists and service users in the design and co-production phase of a decisionsupport tool is feasible and has the potential to empower both peer support specialists and service users, and potentially increase engagement in the use of technologies that support individuals' recovery from traditional clinical encounters.