To develop an agitation reduction and prevention algorithm is intended to guide implementation of the definition of agitation developed by the International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA)

Review of literature on treatment guidelines and recommended algorithms; algorithm development through reiterative integration of research information and expert opinion

IPA Agitation Workgroup

IPA panel of international experts on agitation

Integration of available information into a comprehensive algorithm

None

The IPA Agitation Work Group recommends the Investigate, Plan, and Act (IPA) approach to agitation reduction and prevention. A thorough investigation of the behavior is followed by planning and acting with an emphasis on shared decision-making; the success of the plan is evaluated and adjusted as needed. The process is repeated until agitation is reduced to an acceptable level and prevention of recurrence is optimized. Psychosocial interventions are part of every plan and are continued throughout the process. Pharmacologic interventions are organized into panels of choices for nocturnal/circadian agitation; mild-moderate agitation or agitation with prominent mood features; moderate-severe agitation; and severe agitation with threatened harm to the patient or others. Therapeutic alternatives are presented for each panel. The occurrence of agitation in a variety of venues—home, nursing home, emergency department, hospice—and adjustments to the therapeutic approach are presented.

The IPA definition of agitation is operationalized into an agitation management algorithm that emphasizes the integration of psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions, reiterative assessment of response to treatment, adjustment of therapeutic approaches to reflect the clinical situation, and shared decision-making.

While shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe.

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style – Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians’ expertise, training, and practice.

SDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style.

The preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe.

In 2019, the Danish parliament issued legislation requiring Danish physicians to clarify and honor seriously ill patients’ treatment preferences. The American POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) document could be a valuable model for this process. The aim of the study was to examine patients' preferences for life-sustaining treatment and participant assessment of a Danish POLST form.

The study is a prospective intervention based on a pilot-tested Danish POLST form. Participant assessments were examined using questionnaire surveys. Patients with serious illness and/or frailty from seven hospital wards, two general practitioners, and four nursing homes were included. The patients and their physicians completed the POLST form based on a process of shared decision-making.

A total of 95 patients (aged 41–95) participated. Hereof, 88% declined cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 83% preferred limited medical interventions or comfort care, and 74% did not require artificial nutrition. The preferences were similar within age groups, genders, and locations, but with a tendency toward younger patients being more in favor of full treatment and nursing home residents being more in favor of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Questionnaire response rates were 69% (66/95) for patients, 79% (22/28) for physicians, and 31% (9/29) for nurses. Hereof, the majority of patients, physicians, and nurses found that the POLST form was usable for conversations and decision-making about life-sustaining treatment to either a high or very high degree.

The majority of seriously ill patients did not want a resuscitation attempt and opted for selected treatments. The majority of participants found that the Danish POLST was usable for conversations and decisions about life-sustaining treatment to either a high or a very high degree, and that the POLST form facilitated an opportunity to openly discuss life-sustaining treatment.

Little data exist on provider perspectives about counselling and shared decision-making for complex CHD, ways to support and improve the process, and barriers to effective communication. The goal of this qualitative study was to determine providers’ perspectives regarding factors that are integral to shared decision-making with parents faced with complex CHD in their fetus or newborn; and barriers and facilitators to engaging in effective shared decision-making.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with providers from different areas of practice who care for fetuses and/or children with CHD. Providers were recruited from four geographically diverse centres. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed for key themes using an open coding process with a grounded theory approach.

Interviews were conducted with 31 providers; paediatric cardiologists (n = 7) were the largest group represented, followed by nurses (n = 6) and palliative care providers (n = 5). Key barriers to communication with parents that providers identified included variability among providers themselves, factors that influenced parental comprehension or understanding, discrepant expectations, circumstantial barriers, and trust/relationship with providers. When discussing informational needs of parents, providers focused on comprehensive short- and long-term outcomes, quality of life, and breadth and depth that aligned with parental goals and needs. In discussing resources to support shared decision-making, providers emphasised the need for comprehensive, up-to-date information that was accessible to parents of varying situations and backgrounds.

Provider perspectives on decision-making with families with CHD highlighted key communication issues, informational priorities, and components of decision support that can enhance shared decision-making.