IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i6p3644-d774691.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shared Decision Making in the Psychiatric Inpatient Setting: An Ethnographic Study about Interprofessional Psychiatric Consultations

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Gurtner

    (Applied Research and Development in Nursing, Department of Health Professions, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 3008 Bern, Switzerland
    Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands)

  • Christa Lohrmann

    (Institute of Nursing Science, Medical University Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria)

  • Jos M. G. A. Schols

    (Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Department of Family Medicine & Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands)

  • Sabine Hahn

    (Applied Research and Development in Nursing, Department of Health Professions, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 3008 Bern, Switzerland)

Abstract

Shared decision making is increasingly receiving attention in health care and might improve both the quality of care and patient outcomes. Nevertheless, due to its complexity, implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice seems challenging. This ethnographic study aimed to gain a better understanding of how psychiatric inpatients and the interprofessional care team interact during regular interprofessional psychiatric consultations. Data were collected through participant observation on two different psychiatric wards in a large psychiatric hospital in Switzerland. The observation focused on the contextual aspects of interprofessional patient consultations, the communication and interaction as well as the extent to which patients were involved in decision making. Participants included patients, psychiatrists, junior physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers and therapists. We observed 71 interprofessional psychiatric consultations and they differed substantially in both wards in terms of context (place and form) and culture (way of interacting). On the contrary, results showed that the level of patient involvement in decision making was comparable and depended on individual factors, such as the health care professionals’ communication style as well as the patients’ personal initiative to be engaged. The main topics discussed with the patients related to pharmacotherapy and patient reported symptoms. Health care professionals in both wards used a rather unidirectional communication style. Therefore, in order to promote patient involvement in the psychiatric inpatient setting, rather than to focus on contextual factors, consultations should follow a specific agenda and promoting a bidirectional communication style for all parties involved is strongly recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Gurtner & Christa Lohrmann & Jos M. G. A. Schols & Sabine Hahn, 2022. "Shared Decision Making in the Psychiatric Inpatient Setting: An Ethnographic Study about Interprofessional Psychiatric Consultations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:6:p:3644-:d:774691
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/6/3644/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/6/3644/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:6:p:3644-:d:774691. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.