Search

Objective: Clinical decision making is an important aspect of mental health care. Predictors of how patients experience decision making and whether decisions are implemented are underresearched. This study investigated the relationship between decision topic and involvement in the decision, satisfaction with it, and its subsequent implementation from both staff and patient perspectives.Methods: As part of the Clinical Decision Making and Outcome in Routine Care for People With Severe Mental Illness study, patients (N=588) and their providers (N=213) were recruited from community-based mental health services in six European countries. Both completed bimonthly assessments for one year using the Clinical Decision Making in Routine Care Scale to assess the decision topic and implementation; both also completed the Clinical Decision Making Involvement and Satisfaction Scale.Results: Three categories of decision topics were determined: treatment (most frequently cited), social, and financial. The topic identified as most important remained stable over the follow-up. Patients were more likely to rate their involvement as active rather than passive for social decisions (odds ratio [OR]=5.7, p<.001) and financial decisions (OR=9.5, p<.001). They were more likely to report higher levels of satisfaction rather than lower levels for social decisions (OR=1.5, p=.01) and financial decisions (OR=1.7, p=.01). Social decisions were more likely to be partly implemented (OR=3.0, p<.001) or fully implemented (OR=1.7, p=.03) than not implemented.Conclusions: Patients reported poorer involvement, satisfaction, and implementation in regard to treatment-related decisions, compared with social and financial decisions. Clinicians may need to employ different interactional styles for different types of decisions to maximize satisfaction and decision implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical decision making (CDM) in the treatment of people with severe mental illness relates to a wide range of life domains. Aims: To examine content of CDM in mental health care from the perspectives of service users and staff and to investigate variation in implementation of decisions for differing content. Method: As part of the European multicenter study clinical decision making and outcome in routine care for people with severe mental illness (ISRCTN75841675), 588 service users and their clinicians were asked to identify the decisions made during their last meeting. Decisions were then coded into content categories. Two months later, both parties reported if these decisions had been implemented. Results: Agreement between patients and staff regarding decision making was moderate (κ = 0.21-0.49; p < 0.001). Decisions relating to medication and social issues were most frequently identified. Overall reported level of implementation was 73.5% for patients and 74.7% for staff, and implementation varied by decision content. Conclusions: A variety of relevant decision topics were shown for mental health care. Implementation rates varied in relation to topic and may need different consideration within the therapeutic dyad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a brief quantitative five-language measure of involvement and satisfaction in clinical decision-making (CDIS) – with versions for patients (CDIS-P) and staff (CDIS-S) – for use in mental health services. Methods: An English CDIS was developed by reviewing existing measures, focus groups, semistructured interviews and piloting. Translations into Danish, German, Hungarian and Italian followed the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force principles of good practice for translation and cultural adaptation. Psychometricevaluation involved testing the measure in secondary mental health services in Aalborg, Debrecen, London, Naples, Ulm and Zurich. Results: After appraising 14 measures, the Control Preference Scale and Satisfaction With Decision-making English-language scales were modified and evaluated in interviews (n = 9), focus groups (n = 22) and piloting (n = 16). Translations were validated through focus groups (n = 38) and piloting (n = 61). A total of 443 service users and 403 paired staff completed CDIS. The Satisfaction sub-scale had internal consistency of 0.89 (0.86-0.89 after item-level deletion) for staff and 0.90 (0.87-0.90) for service users, both continuous and categorical (utility) versions were associated with symptomatology and both staff-rated and service userrated therapeutic alliance (showing convergent validity), and not with social disability (showing divergent validity), and satisfaction predicted staff-rated (OR 2.43, 95%CI 1.54- 3.83 continuous, OR 5.77, 95%CI 1.90-17.53 utility) and service user-rated (OR 2.21, 95%CI 1.51-3.23 continuous, OR 3.13, 95%CI 1.10-8.94 utility) decision implementation two months later. The Involvement sub-scale had appropriate distribution and no floor or ceiling effects, was associated with stage of recovery, functioning and quality of life (staff only) (showing convergent validity), and not with symptomatology or social disability (showing divergent validity), and staff-rated passive involvement by the service user predicted implementation (OR 3.55, 95%CI 1.53-8.24). Relationships remained after adjusting for clustering by staff. Conclusions: CDIS demonstrates adequate internal consistency, no evidence of item redundancy, appropriate distribution, and face, content, convergent, divergent and predictive validity. It can be recommended for research and clinical use. CDIS-P and CDIS-S in all 3 five languages can be downloaded at http://www.cedar-net.eu/instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]