Search

There is an increased focus on fostering integrity in research by through creating an open culture where research integrity dilemmas can be discussed. We describe a pilot intervention study that used Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), a method that originated in clinical ethics support, to discuss research integrity dilemmas with researchers. Our research question was: can moral case deliberation in research groups help to navigate research integrity dilemmas? We performed 10 MCDs with 19 researchers who worked in three different research groups from three different disciplinary fields at a university in the Netherlands. We analyzed the dilemmas and values discussed, sent out a survey questionnaire to assess self-perceived moral competencies, and conducted in-depth interviews. We found research integrity dilemmas pertained to authorship disputes, supervision of junior co-workers, and questionable handling of data. Participants perceived the majority of moral competencies to a higher degree during the MCD when compared to perceiving them in daily practice afterward. Interviewees told us that they felt most comfortable discussing dilemmas among peers with whom they were not closely affiliated. We conclude that MCD sessions could be relevant in navigating research integrity dilemmas, but that revisions to ensure commitment and safety are required.

On January 1, 2020, the Compulsory Mental Health Care Act took effect in the Netherlands. It contains provisions for compulsory community treatment (CCT) and compulsory treatment at home (CTH). In this study, we collected the opinions of patients and their significant others on CTH and on their preferences regarding compulsory care in their homes. Patients and their significant others were involved in the experience-based co-design of a purpose-built online questionnaire. This questionnaire was completed by 624 patients and 531 significant others. Sixty-one percent of the patients and 62% of the significant others did not want compulsory treatment to take place at home but in hospital or elsewhere. Patients’ and significant others’ opinion showed few differences, except with regard to the involvement of the significant others in CTH. As the respective views of patients and significant others were mixed, we recommend that crisis plans and compulsory treatment plans should be individually tailored to the needs and wishes of patients and their significant others regarding CTH.

High and Intensive Care is a relatively new care model in Dutch mental health care for clinical admissions. One of the goals is to keep the admission short. For some patients, this goal is not realized, which results in a long-term admission. Often, this is experienced as a disruption. Disruptions in care processes are frequently defined in terms of patient characteristics. Yet, it may be that other factors play a role. The aim of this study is to gain better insight into the perceptions of care professionals of what is characteristic for disruptions at High and Intensive Care wards and how professionals can deal with these. Qualitative research was performed by means of semi-structured interviews and a focus group with professionals. Results show that a focus on patient characteristics is too narrow and that other factors also play an important role. These factors include challenges in the relation between professionals and the patient, a divided team, and a lack of collaboration with ambulatory care. In order to deal with these factors, professionals should invest in the relationship with the patient, identify destructive team processes early, and improve communication with ambulatory care. It is recommended to develop a monitoring tool that includes all these factors. Another recommendation is to organize structured reflection on dilemmas experienced in care. In conclusion, this study shows the importance of going beyond patient characteristics in order to better understand, identify, and deal with disruption at High and Intensive Care wards.

Unlike developments in short-term clinical and community care, the recovery movement has not yet gained foothold in long-term mental health services. In the Netherlands, approximately 21,000 people are dependent on long-term mental health care and support. To date, these people have benefited little from recovery-oriented care, rather traditional problem-oriented care has remained the dominant approach. Based on the view that recovery is within reach, also for people with complex needs, a new care model for long-term mental health care was developed, the active recovery triad (ART) model. In a period of 2.5 years, several meetings with a large group of stakeholders in the field of Dutch long-term mental health care took place in order to develop the ART model. Stakeholders involved in the development process were mental health workers, policy advisors, managers, directors, researchers, peer workers, and family representatives. The ART model combines an active role for professionals, service users, and significant others, with focus on recovery and cooperation between service users, family, and professionals in the triad. The principles of ART are translated into seven crucial steps in care and a model fidelity scale in order to provide practical guidelines for teams implementing the ART model in practice. The ART model provides guidance for tailored recovery-oriented care and support to this “low-volume high-need” group of service users in long-term mental health care, aiming to alter their perspective and take steps in the recovery process. Further research should investigate the effects of the ART model on quality of care, recovery, and autonomy of service users and cooperation in the triad.

Currently, forensic psychiatry shows a shift from a control-based to a contact-based approach. Working from contact may, however, entail new moral questions and dilemmas. How to secure safety when focusing on contact? Does contact imply being physically close to the patient, or should one refrain from intimate relations? In order to help care professionals to deal with these moral issues, clinical ethics support can be useful. A specific approach in clinical ethics support is moral case deliberation (MCD). An MCD is a structured dialogue between professionals on a moral issue they experience in practice, structured by a conversation method and guided by a facilitator. In this article, we describe the background and procedures of MCD. Furthermore, we present a case example in which care professionals reflect on the moral question of whether provision of care in forensic psychiatry may entail physical closeness. The MCD shows that an open conversation results in a better understanding of different perspectives and creates the basis for finding a joint way to proceed in the case. We conclude that MCD can enable professionals to reflect on moral issues and develop shared values in forensic psychiatry.