Shared decision making (SDM) has found its way into mental health care to a limited extent only, and especially “challenging” patients do not benefit from this approach. In this lecture we will describe barriers to shared decision making among mental health professionals and among patients. Integrative approaches will be presented that meet the needs of patients and mental health staff when aiming at implementing SDM in acute mental health settings. Finally, best practice examples will illustrate that SDM actually can be implemented in the very acute settings/treatment phases and yields positive results.

None Declared

Challenged by the lack of collaboration between treatment sectors in psychiatric care in Germany, a legal basis for the implementation of Stationsäquivalente Behandlung (StäB), a programme for crisis resolution and home treatment (CRHT), was formed in 2017. It offers intensive care to patients with severe mental illness in their own living environments, carried out by a team of diverse professionals.

The present analysis is the first to evaluate the CRHT-program that has been established in the greater Munich area in 2018.

Qualitative and quantitative data were collected within the framework of a mixed-methods-analysis. Records of all patients (N=139) included in the CRHT over a thirteen-month period (’18–’19) were examined regarding sociodemographic, clinical parameters, and treatment data. A focus group with StäB-employees (N=8) and individual interviews with patients (N=10) were conducted, then transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis.

139 patients (74% female) were treated in 164 cases for 38 days on average. Main diagnoses were schizophrenic diseases (43%) and mood disorders (35%), with patients ranging from markedly to severely ill (mean CGI-S: 5.8). 9.4% were in postpartum. Qualitative analysis is still in progress. Preliminary results demonstrate positive responses to individual treatment and environmental integration, whereas frequently changing contacts and the logistical effort were seen critically.

Work is still in progress. We expect StäB to be an adequate alternative to inpatient treatment for women in puerperium and a new opportunity for patients who need intensive treatment but refuse hospitalisation.

Although shared decision-making (SDM) has the potential to improve health outcomes, psychiatrists often exclude patients with more severe mental illnesses or more acute conditions from participation in treatment decisions. This study examines whether SDM is facilitated by an approach which is specifically adapted to the needs of acutely ill patients (SDM-PLUS).

The study is a multi-centre, cluster-randomised, non-blinded, controlled trial of SDM-PLUS in 12 acute psychiatric wards of five psychiatric hospitals addressing inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. All patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were consecutively recruited for the trial at the time of their admission to the ward. Treatment teams of intervention wards were trained in the SDM-PLUS approach through participation in two half-day workshops. Patients on intervention wards received group training in SDM. Staff (and patients) of the control wards acted under ‘treatment as usual’ conditions. The primary outcome parameter was the patients' perceived involvement in decision-making at 3 weeks after study enrolment, analysed using a random-effects linear regression model.

In total, 161 participants each were recruited in the intervention and control group. SDM-PLUS led to higher perceived involvement in decision-making (primary outcome, analysed patients n = 257, mean group difference 16.5, 95% CI 9.0–24.0, p = 0.002, adjusted for baseline differences: β 17.3, 95% CI 10.8–23.6, p = 0.0004). In addition, intervention group patients exhibited better therapeutic alliance, treatment satisfaction and self-rated medication compliance during inpatient stay. There were, however, no significant improvements in adherence and rehospitalisation rates in the 6- and 12-month follow-up.

Despite limitations in patient recruitment, the SDM-PLUS trial has shown that the adoption of behavioural approaches (e.g. motivational interviewing) for SDM may yield a successful application to mental health. The authors recommend strategies to ensure effects are not lost at the interface between in- and outpatient treatment.

Trial registration: The trial was registered at Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS00010880).

Studies on the frequency of caregiver involvement in representative inpatient samples are scarce. The aim of our study was to conduct a representative survey on caregiver involvement in routine inpatient care involving all three parties (patients, caregivers, psychiatrists). Therefore, we performed face-to-face interviews consisting of open-ended questions to gain a deeper understanding of when and how caregivers are involved in care treatment and to identify which topics are mainly discussed.

This cross-sectional survey included inpatients from 55 acute psychiatric wards across ten psychiatric hospitals, their treating psychiatrists and, when possible, their caregivers. In total, we performed semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 247 patients, their treating psychiatrists and 94 informal caregivers. Each psychiatrist named the next two to three patients to be discharged. After a patient had given informed consent, the interview was performed by a researcher. In addition, the psychiatrist and, when possible, the primary caregiver identified by the patient, were also interviewed.

It was perceived by both patients and psychiatrists that contact between caregiver and psychiatrist had taken place in one-third of the patient cases. Predictors for psychiatrist-caregiver-contact were revealed in the patient's diagnosis (schizophrenia), a lower history of inpatient stays, and the respective hospital. According to psychiatrists the most frequent subjects of discussion with caregivers involved therapeutic issues and organisational and social-psychiatric topics (e.g. work, living and social support). Patients and caregivers stated that psychiatric treatment and the diagnostic classification of the mental illness were the most frequent topics of conversation. For all three groups, the most often cited reason for missed caregiver involvement was the subjective perception that a caregiver was not in fact needed.

Whether or not caregivers were contacted and involved during an inpatient stay strongly depended on the individual hospital. The frequency of involvement of caregivers can certainly be increased by changing processes and structures in hospitals. All three parties (patients, caregivers and psychiatrists) most often stated that the caregiver was not involved in the treatment because they thought it was unnecessary. Evidence demonstrates the positive effect of caregivers' involvement on the therapeutic process but also on the well-being of the caregiver, therefore it is necessary to increase awareness of this evidence among all three interest groups.

Despite good clinical evidence, depot antipsychotics are only seldom prescribed to patients with first episode schizophrenia. The present study aims at investigating psychiatrists’ reasons for this reservation.

We surveyed 198 psychiatrists on their attitude toward offering depot treatment to first episode patients (FEP). Participants scored the extent of influence of individual factors on their decision on a seven-point-scale, additional data on their prescription practice and estimation of the relapse risk of FEP were collected.

Psychiatrists reported that only three out of 12 factors were of influence. These were the limited availability of different second generation antipsychotic depot drugs, the frequent rejection of the depot offer by the patients and the patients’ skepticism based on the lack in experience of a relapse.

There is actually little specific reason for not prescribing depot to FEP according to the current survey. For those factors being reported to be of influence, psychoeducation, including profound information on depot treatment, the development of additional SGA depot drugs and the standard offer of depot treatment to all FEP in a shared-decision-making may be considered.

The purpose of this study was to describe disaster preparedness strategies and behaviors among rural families who have children with special health care needs and to examine the effect of self-efficacy and response-efficacy on disaster preparedness.

Data for this study were drawn from the baseline surveys of 287 rural families with children with special health care needs who were part of a randomized controlled trial examining the impact of an intervention on disaster preparedness. Distributions of child, parent, and family characteristics were examined by preparedness. Linear regression models were built to examine the impact of self-efficacy and response-efficacy on level of disaster preparedness.

Disaster preparedness (overall, emergency plan, discussion/practice, and supplies) was low (40.9-69.7%) among study families. Disaster preparedness was found to increase with each unit increase in the level of self-efficacy and family resilience sources across all 4 categories of preparedness.

Disaster preparedness among rural families with children with special health care needs is low, which is concerning because these children may have increased vulnerability to adverse outcomes compared to the general population. Results suggest that increasing the levels of self-efficacy and family resilience sources may increase disaster preparedness. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:225–232)

To study whether employees who disclose a psychiatric diagnosis, such as depression risk stigmatisation and discrimination at the workplace.

Randomised experimental study with 748 managers from German companies incorporating four case vignettes displaying an employee with different ‘diagnoses’ (depression, burnout, private crisis and thyroid dysfunction), but identical unspecific complaints. Main outcome measures were the managers' attitudes and their impact on stigmatisation with respect to job performance.

In nearly all aspects of job performance, the diagnosis depression (psychiatric disorder) was seen as more critical than the diagnosis of a thyroid dysfunction (somatic disease). The diagnosis ‘burnout’ did not prove to be less stigmatising than ‘depression’. Likewise ‘private crisis’ was rated less favourably than thyroid dysfunction.

Therefore, employees have to evaluate if they disclose their psychiatric disorder or if they conceal it as a somatic illness.

Diagnostic errors can have tremendous consequences because they can result in a fatal chain of wrong decisions. Experts assume that physicians' desire to confirm a preliminary diagnosis while failing to seek contradictory evidence is an important reason for wrong diagnoses. This tendency is called ‘confirmation bias’.

To study whether psychiatrists and medical students are prone to confirmation bias and whether confirmation bias leads to poor diagnostic accuracy in psychiatry, we presented an experimental decision task to 75 psychiatrists and 75 medical students.

A total of 13% of psychiatrists and 25% of students showed confirmation bias when searching for new information after having made a preliminary diagnosis. Participants conducting a confirmatory information search were significantly less likely to make the correct diagnosis compared to participants searching in a disconfirmatory or balanced way [multiple logistic regression: odds ratio (OR) 7.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.53–21.22, p<0.001; OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.23–8.56, p=0.02]. Psychiatrists conducting a confirmatory search made a wrong diagnosis in 70% of the cases compared to 27% or 47% for a disconfirmatory or balanced information search (students: 63, 26 and 27%). Participants choosing the wrong diagnosis also prescribed different treatment options compared with participants choosing the correct diagnosis.

Confirmatory information search harbors the risk of wrong diagnostic decisions. Psychiatrists should be aware of confirmation bias and instructed in techniques to reduce bias.