Article

Trial of an Electronic Decision Support System to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in Community Mental Health

Ann Arbor Department of Veterans Affairs, Serious Mental Illness Treatment, Research, and Evaluation Center, Health Services Research and Development, P.O. Box 13017, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA.
Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) (Impact Factor: 1.99). 01/2011; 62(1):54-60. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.62.1.54
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Involvement of community mental health consumers in mental health decision making has been consistently associated with improvements in health outcomes. Electronic decision support systems (EDSSs) that support both consumer and provider decision making may be a sustainable way to improve dyadic communication in a field with approximately 50% workforce turnover per year. This study examined the feasibility of such a system and investigated proximal outcomes of the system's performance.
A cluster randomized design was used to evaluate an EDSS at three urban community mental health sites. Case managers (N=20) were randomly assigned to the EDSS-supported planning group or to the usual care planning group. Consumers (N=80) were assigned to the same group as their case managers. User satisfaction with the care planning process was assessed for consumers and case managers (possible scores range from 1 to 5, with higher summary scores indicating more satisfaction). Recall of the care plan was assessed for consumers. Linear regression with adjustment for grouping by worker was used to assess satisfaction scores. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to examine knowledge of the care plan.
Compared with case managers in the control group, those in the intervention group were significantly more satisfied with the care planning process (mean ± SD score=4.0 ± .5 versus 3.3 ± .5; adjusted p=.01). Compared with consumers in the control group, those in the intervention group had significantly greater recall of their care plans three days after the planning session (mean proportion of plan goals recalled=75% ± 28% versus 57% ± 32%; p=.02). There were no differences between the clients in the intervention and control groups regarding satisfaction.
This study demonstrated that clients can build their own care plans and negotiate and revise them with their case managers using an EDSS.

1 Follower
 · 
98 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Decision-making between mental health clinicians and patients is under-researched. We tested whether mental health patients are more satisfied with a decision made (i) using their preferred decision-making style and (ii) with a clinician with the same decision-making style preference. As part of the CEDAR Study (ISRCTN75841675), a convenience sample of 445 patients with severe mental illness from six European countries were assessed for desired clinical decision-making style (rated by patients and paired clinicians), decision-specific experienced style and satisfaction. Patients who experienced more involvement in decision-making than they desired rated higher satisfaction (OR = 2.47, P = 0.005, 95% CI 1.32-4.63). Decisions made with clinicians whose decision-making style preference was for more active involvement than the patient preference were rated with higher satisfaction (OR = 3.17, P = 0.003, 95% CI 1.48-6.82). More active involvement in decision-making than the patient stated as desired was associated with higher satisfaction. A clinical orientation towards empowering, rather than shared, decision-making may maximise satisfaction. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
    Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 12/2014; 131(5). DOI:10.1111/acps.12365 · 5.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The notion of recovery has been embraced by key stakeholders across Canada and elsewhere. This has led to a proliferation of definitions, models, and research on recovery, making it vitally important to examine the data to disentangle the evidence from the rhetoric. In this paper, first we ask, what do people living with severe mental illness (SMI) say about recovery in autobiographical accounts? Second, what do they say about recovery in qualitative studies? Third, from what we have uncovered about recovery, can we learn anything from quantitative studies about proportions of people leading lives of recovery? Finally, can we identify interventions and approaches that may be consistent or inconsistent with the grounded notions of recovery unearthed in this paper? We found that people with mental illness frequently state that recovery is a journey, characterized by a growing sense of agency and autonomy, as well as greater participation in normative activities, such as employment, education, and community life. However, the evidence suggests that most people with SMI still live in a manner inconsistent with recovery; for example, their unemployment rate is over 80%, and they are disproportionately vulnerable to homelessness, stigma, and victimization. Research stemming from rehabilitation science suggests that recovery can be enhanced by various evidence-based services, such as supported employment, as well as by clinical approaches, such as shared decision making and peer support. But these are not routinely available. As such, significant systemic changes are necessary to truly create a recovery-oriented mental health system.
    Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie 05/2014; 59(5):236-242. · 2.41 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assessment of users' information and decision-making needs is one key step in the development of decision-support interventions.
    Health expectations: an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 08/2014; DOI:10.1111/hex.12251 · 2.85 Impact Factor