Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35329331›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

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

Caroline Gurtner, Christa Lohrmann, Jos M G A Schols, Sabine Hahn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Caroline GurtnerApplied Research and Development in Nursing, Department of Health Professions, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 3008 Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7699-5655
Christa LohrmannInstitute of Nursing Science, Medical University Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0778-5854
Jos M G A ScholsDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4062-2061
Sabine HahnApplied Research and Development in Nursing, Department of Health Professions, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 3008 Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2697-2014

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedInpatientsDecision MakingHumansPatient ParticipationReferral and Consultationclinical practicecommunicationinterprofessional psychiatric consultationsmental illnessparticipant observationpatient-centered carepatient involvementpsychiatric disorderpsychiatric inpatient settingshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID35329331
PMCPMC8954628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.