WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has existed worldwide for nearly 80 years. ECT is a fast-working and potentially life-saving treatment, but it is considered controversial. Although frequently mentioned, stigmatization in relation to ECT has not been systematically explored so far. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: This paper provides new insight into both recipient and expert perspectives on ECT. It identifies several issues of stigmatization related to ECT and suggests that full recovery following ECT might be jeopardized due to both stigmatization and self-stigmatization. The study suggests that most of the stigmatizing behaviors can be ascribed to (a lack of) available knowledge of and experience with ECT. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Being aware of and listening to the needs of former ECT-recipients seems essential to increase their treatment options and support care as well as a will to prioritize this patient group. For example, by addressing the potential stigma issues in follow-up groups and helping to distribute sober, factual information about ECT in society. Providing written information and psychoeducation for patients and relatives before, during, and after ECT, in addition to supporting active use of diaries, might be valuable remedies for helping patients feel adequately informed and able to accept the pros and cons of ECT during and after treatment period. ABSTRACT: Introduction Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has existed worldwide for nearly 80 years. Although fast-working and potentially life-saving treatment, ECT is regarded as a strongly controversial treatment and stigmatization is frequently mentioned in relation to it. However, no systematic research in this area has taken place so far. Aim The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the experiences and attitudes of former recipients of ECT and of experts professionally involved with ECT to identify potential stigmatization. Method Two focus groups, one comprising four recipients of ECT and the other seven professional experts, were conducted. Data from each focus group were analyzed separately using a framework-analysis. Results The analysis yielded three major themes for the first focus group interview: ambivalent attitudes, discrediting and exclusion, and survival strategies and three major themes for the second focus group interview: dramatic depictions of ECT, an overlooked and rare treatment, and anti-stigmatization strategies. Discussion and implications for practice Stigmatizing attitudes and behaviors in relation to ECT are closely related to one's personal and factual knowledge, and there is a great need for multi-facetted approaches if social acceptance and recognition are to be achieved. This study provides new knowledge on a scarcely examined area while also introducing suitable methods for anti-stigmatization and empowerment.

No abstract

Background Significant resources are spent on hospital accreditation worldwide. However, documentation of the effects of accreditation on processes, quality of care and outcomes in healthcare remain scarce. This study aimed to examine changes in the delivery of patient care in accordance with clinical guidelines (recommended care) after first-time accreditation in a care setting not previously exposed to systematic quality improvement initiatives. Methods We conducted a before and after study based on medical record reviews in connection with introducing first-time accreditation. We included patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack, bleeding gastric ulcer, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), childbirth, heart failure and hip fracture treated at public, non-psychiatric Faroese hospitals during 2012–2013 (before accreditation) or 2017–2018 (after accreditation). The intervention was the implementation of a modified second version of The Danish Healthcare Quality Program (DDKM) from 2014 to 2016 including an on-site accreditation survey in the Faroese hospitals. Recommended care was assessed using 63 disease specific patient level process performance measures in seven clinical conditions. We calculated the fulfillment and changes in the opportunity-based composite score and the all-or-none score. Results We included 867 patient pathways (536 before and 331 after). After accreditation, the total opportunity-based composite score was marginally higher though the change did not reach statistical significance (adjusted percentage point difference (%): 4.4%; 95% CI: − 0.7 to 9.6). At disease level, patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack, bleeding gastric ulcer, COPD and childbirth received a higher proportion of recommended care after accreditation. No difference was found for heart failure and diabetes. Hip fracture received less recommended care after accreditation. The total all-or-none score, which is the probability of a patient receiving all recommended care, was significantly higher after accreditation (adjusted relative risk (RR): 2.32; 95% CI: 2.03 to 2.67). The improvement was particularly strong for patients with COPD (RR: 16.22; 95% CI: 14.54 to 18.10). Conclusion Hospitals were in general more likely to provide recommended care after first-time accreditation.

Background The impact of hospital accreditation on the experiences of patients remains a weak point in quality improvement research. This is surprising given the time and cost of accreditation and the fact that patient experiences influence outcomes. We investigated the impact of first-time hospital accreditation on patients’ experience of support from healthcare professionals, information and involvement in decisions. Methods We conducted a longitudinal study in the three Faroese hospitals that unlike hospitals on the Danish mainland and elsewhere internationally, had no prior exposure to systematic quality improvement. The hospitals were accredited in 2017 according to a modified second version of the Danish Healthcare Quality program. Study participants were 18 years or older and hospitalized for at least 24 hours in 2016 before or 2018 after accreditation. We administered the National Danish Survey of Patient Experiences for acute and scheduled hospitalization. Patients rated their experiences of support, information and involvement in decision-making on a 5-point Likert scale. We calculated individual and grouped mean item scores, the percentages of scores ≥4, the mean score difference, the relative risk (RR) for high/very high scores (≥4) using Poisson regression and the risk difference (RD). Patient experience ratings were compared using mixed effects linear regression. Results In total, 400 patients before and 400 after accreditation completed the survey. After accreditation patients experienced more support; adjusted mean score difference (adj. mean diff.)= 1.99 (95%CI: 1.89, 2.10), more information before and during hospitalization; adj. mean diff.= 1.14 (95%CI: 1.07, 1.20) and more involvement in decision-making; adj. mean diff.= 1.79 (95%CI: 1.76, 1.82). Additionally, the RR for a high/very high score (≥4) was significantly greater on 15 of the 16 questionnaire items. The greatest RR for a high/very high score (≥4) after accreditation, was found for the item “Have you had a dialogue with the staff about the advantages and disadvantages of the examination/treatment options available?” RR= 5.73 (95%CI: 4.51, 7.27). Conclusion Hospitalized patients experienced significantly more support from health professionals, information and involvement in decision-making after accreditation. Future research on accreditation should include the patient perspective.