Exploring the potential implementation of a tool to enhance shared decision making (SDM) in mental health services in the United Kingdom:A qualitative exploration of the views of service users, carers and professionals.

摘要

Background: As a response to evidence that mental health service users and carers expect greater involvement in decisions about antipsychotic medication choice and prescribing, shared decision-making (SDM) has increasingly come to be viewed as an essential element of person-centred care and practice. However, this aspiration has yet to be realised in practice, as service users and carers continue to feel alienated from healthcare services. Existing understanding of the factors affecting the use of tools to support SDM is limited to inter-individual influences and wider factors affecting potential implementation are underexplored. Aim: To explore the potential use of a tool designed to enhance collaborative antipsychotic prescribing from the perspectives of secondary mental health service users, carers and professionals. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) using a purposive sample of 33 participants (10 mental health service users, 10 carers and 13 professionals) involved in antipsychotic prescribing in one Trust in the North of England. Participants were asked about the potential implementation of a tool to support SDM within secondary mental health services. Framework analysis incorporating the use of constant comparative method was used to analyse the data.Results: The study identified a divergence in the views of service users and professionals, including a previously undocumented tendency to blame each other for implementation failure. This dissonance is shaped by meso and macro level influences relating to paternalism, legislative frameworks, accountability and lack of resources. Participants did not identify macro level (policy or structural) facilitators to the use of the tool highlighting the negative impact of mental health contexts. Our study indicated that inter-individual factors are likely to be most important to implementation, given their potential to transcend meso and macro level barriers by disrupting paternalism.Conclusions: Consideration of the meso and macro level influences identified areas for potential intervention, including challenging professionals and service users' perceptions of each other, rebalancing the notion of accountability within services and introducing new means for service user feedback on the quality of SDM. Multi-level strategies for facilitating the implementation of tools to support SDM are also presented.