BackgroundMental health care has lagged behind other health‐care domains in developing and applying shared decision making (SDM) for treatment decisions. This is despite compatibilities with ideals of modern mental health care such as self‐management and recovery‐oriented practice, and growing policy‐level interest. Psychiatric medication is a mainstay of mental health treatment, but there are known problems with prescribing practices, and service users report feeling uninvolved in medication decisions and concerned about adverse effects. SDM has potential to produce better tailoring of psychiatric medication to individuals' needs.ObjectivesThis conceptual review argues that several aspects of mental health care that differ from other health‐care contexts (e.g. forms of coercion, questions about service users' insight and disempowerment) may impact on processes and possibilities for SDM. It is therefore problematic to uncritically import models of SDM developed in other health‐care contexts. We argue that decision making for psychiatric medication is better understood in a broader way that moves beyond the micro‐social focus of a medical consultation. Contextualizing specific medication‐related consultations within longer term relationships, and broader service systems enables recognition of the multiple processes, actors and agendas that shape how psychiatric medication is prescribed, managed and used, and which may facilitate or impede SDM.ConclusionA broad conceptualization of decision making for psychiatric medication that moves beyond the micro‐social can account for why SDM in this domain remains a rarity. It has both conceptual and practical utility for evaluating research evidence, identifying future research priorities and highlighting fruitful ways of developing and implementing SDM in mental health care.

PurposeShared Decision Making (SDM) prioritises joint deliberation between practitioner and service user, and a respect for service-users' experiential knowledge, values and preferences.. This article reviews the existing literature pertaining to key stakeholders' attitudes towards SDM in mental health. It examines whether perceived barriers and facilitators differ by group (e.g. service user, psychiatrist, nurse, social worker) and includes views of what facilitates and hinders the process for service users and practitioners. MethodologyThis review adopts the principles of a qualitative research synthesis. A key word search of research published between 1990 and 2016 was undertaken. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies were included. Findings43 papers were included and several themes identified for service user and practitioner perspectives. Both practitioners and service users see SDM as an ethical imperative, and both groups highlight the need to be flexible in implementing shared decision making, suggesting it is context dependent. A range of challenges and barriers are presented by both practitioners and service users reflecting complex contextual and cultural features within which interactions in mental health take place. There were qualitative differences in what service users and practitioners describe as preventing or enabling SDM. The differences highlighted point towards different challenges and priorities in SDM for service users and practitioners. Originality / ValueThe presentation of nuanced views and attitudes that practitioners and service users hold represent an important and under reported area and offer insight into the reasons for the gap between idealised policy and actual practice of SDM in mental health settings.

Purpose Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of health care in which patients are involved in the decision-making process about their treatment, considering their preferences and concerns in a deliberative process with the health care provider. Many existing instruments assess the antecedents, process, or the outcomes of SDM. The purpose of this paper is to identify the SDM-related measures applied in a mental health context. Design/methodology/approach The authors performed a systematic review in several electronic databases from 1990 to October 2016. Studies that assessed quantitatively one or more constructs related to SDM (antecedents, process, and outcomes) in the field of mental health were included. Findings The authors included 87 studies that applied 48 measures on distinct SDM constructs. A large majority of them have been developed in the field of physical diseases and adapted or directly applied in the mental health context. The most evaluated construct is the SDM process in consultation, mainly by patients’ self-report but also by external observer measures, followed by the patients’ preferences for involvement in decision making. The most applied instrument was the Autonomy Preference Index, followed by the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) and the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). The psychometric validation in mental health samples of the instruments identified is scarce. Research limitations/implications The bibliographic search is comprehensive, but could not be completely exhaustive. Effort should be invested in the development of new SDM for mental health tools that will reflect the complexity and specific features of mental health care. Originality/value The authors highlight several limitations and challenges for the measurement of SDM in mental health care.

Reducing physical intervention in mental health inpatient care is a global priority. It is extremely distressing both to patients and staff. PROactive Management of Integrated Services and Environments (PROMISE) was developed within Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT) to bring about culture change to decrease coercion in care. This study evaluates the changes in physical intervention numbers and patient experience metrics and proposes an easy-to-adopt and adapt governance framework for complex interventions.PROMISE was based on three core values of: providing a caring response to all distress; courage to challenge the status quo; and coproduction of novel solutions. It sought to transform daily front-line interactions related to risk-based restrictive practice that often leads to physical interventions. PROactive Governance of Recovery Settings and Services, a five-step governance framework (Report, Reflect, Review, Rethink and Refresh), was developed in an iterative and organic fashion to oversee the improvement journey and effectively translate information into knowledge, learning and actions.Overall physical interventions reduced from 328 to 241and210 across consecutive years (2014, 2015–2016 and 2016–2017, respectively). Indeed, the 2016–2017 total would have been further reduced to 126 were it not for the perceived substantial care needs of one patient. Prone restraints reduced from 82 to 32 (2015–2016 and 2016–2017, respectively). During 2016–2017, each ward had a continuous 3-month period of no restraints and 4 months without prone restrains. Patient experience surveys (n=4591) for 2014–2017 rated overall satisfaction with care at 87%.CPFT reported fewer physical interventions and maintained high patient experience scores when using a five-pronged governance approach. It has a summative function to define where a team or an organisation is relative to goals and is formative in setting up the next steps relating to action, learning and future planning.

Shared decisionmaking (SDM) is a recommended health communication approach in mental health settings. Yet, implementation of SDM in psychiatric consultations discussing medication management is challenging. Insufficient attention has been given to examine the views of both clinicians and service users together about the experiences of SDM in psychiatric medication management. The purpose of this paper is to examine the views of service users, community psychiatric nurses, and psychiatrists about enablers and barriers of SDM. A thematic analysis of 30 semi structured interviews with service users, psychiatrists, and community psychiatric nurses, in a community mental health team in the UK, was conducted. A service user advisory group was involved in all phases of the research cycle, including data collection, analysis, and dissemination. The results offer a detailed contextualized account of how medication decisions are made. For psychiatrists and service user participants SDM is seen as a way of enhancing service users' engagement in and control over treatment decisions. While psychiatrists value the transactional benefits of SDM, service user participants and psychiatric nurses conceptualize SDM as a long-term endeavor embedded within therapeutic partnerships. For service users these partnerships mitigate acknowledged problems of feeling unable to be fully involved during times of crisis. This study identified a range of barriers and facilitators to SDM concerning psychiatric medications from the lived experience of service users and the professional experience of clinicians. Furthermore, it indicates new potential intervention points to support SDM in psychiatric medication decisions.