BackgroundSeclusion is an invasive clinical intervention used in inpatient psychiatric wards as a continuation of milieu therapy with vast behavioural implications that raise many ethical challenges. Seclusion is in Norway defined as an intervention used to contain the patient, accompanied by staff, in a single room, a separate unit, or an area inside the ward. Isolation is defined as the short-term confinement of a patient behind a locked or closed door with no staff present. Few studies examine how staff experiences the ethical challenges they encounter during seclusion. By making these challenges explicit and reflecting upon them, we may be able to provide better care to patients. The aim of this study is to examine how clinical staff in psychiatric inpatient wards describes and assess the ethical challenges of seclusion.MethodsThis study was based on 149 detailed written descriptions of episodes of seclusion from 57 psychiatric wards. A descriptive and exploratory approach was used. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe main finding is that the relationship between treatment and control during seclusion presents several ethical challenges. This is reflected in the balance between the staff’s sincere desire to provide good treatment and the patients’ behaviour that makes control necessary. Particularly, the findings show how taking control of the patient can be ethically challenging and burdensome and that working under such conditions may result in psychosocial strain on the staff. The findings are discussed according to four core ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.ConclusionEthical challenges seem to be at the core of the seclusion practice. Systematic ethical reflections are one way to process the ethical challenges that staff encounters. More knowledge is needed concerning the ethical dimensions of seclusion and alternatives to seclusion, including what ethical consequences the psychosocial stress of working with seclusion have for staff.

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process whereby clinicians and patients work together to select treatments based on both the patient’s preferences and clinical evidence. Although patients with psychotic disorders want to participate more in decisions regarding their care, they have limited opportunities to do so because of various barriers. Knowing about health professionals’ experiences with SDM is important toward achieving successful implementation. The study aim was to describe and explore health professionals’ SDM experiences with patients with psychotic disorders. Methods Three focus group interviews were conducted, with a total of 18 health professionals who work at one of three Norwegian community mental health centres where patients with psychotic disorders are treated. We applied a descriptive and exploratory approach using qualitative content analysis. Results Health professionals primarily understand the SDM concept to mean giving patients information and presenting them with a choice between different antipsychotic medications. Among the barriers to SDM, they emphasized that patients with psychosis have a limited understanding of their health situation and that time is needed to build trust and alliances. Health professionals mainly understand patients with psychotic disorders as a group with limited abilities to make their own decisions. They also described the concept of SDM with little consideration of presenting different treatment options. Psychological or social interventions were often presented as complementary to antipsychotic medications, rather than as an alternative to them. Conclusion Health professionals’ understanding of SDM is inconsistent with the definition commonly used in the literature. They consider patients with psychotic disorders to have limited abilities to participate in decisions regarding their own treatment. These findings suggest that health professionals need more theoretical and practical training in SDM.

Purpose Service providers need effective strategies to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs) with high fidelity. This study aimed to evaluate an intensive implementation support strategy to increase fidelity to EBP standards in treatment of patients with psychosis. Methods The study used a cluster randomized design with pairwise assignment of practices within each of 39 Norwegian mental health clinics. Each site chose two of four practices for implementation: physical health care, antipsychotic medication management, family psychoeducation, illness management and recovery. One practice was assigned to the experimental condition (toolkits, clinical training, implementation facilitation, data-based feedback) and the other to the control condition (manual only). The outcome measure was fidelity to the EBP, measured at baseline and after 6, 12, and 18 months, analyzed using linear mixed models and effect sizes. Results The increase in fidelity scores (within a range 1–5) from baseline to 18 months was significantly greater for experimental sites than for control sites for the combined four practices, with mean difference in change of 0.86 with 95% CI (0.21; 1.50), p = 0.009). Effect sizes for increase in group difference of mean fidelity scores were 2.24 for illness management and recovery, 0.68 for physical health care, 0.71 for antipsychotic medication management, and 0.27 for family psychoeducation. Most improvements occurred during the first 12 months. Conclusions Intensive implementation strategies (toolkits, clinical training, implementation facilitation, data-based feedback) over 12 months can facilitate the implementation of EBPs for psychosis treatment. The approach may be more effective for some practices than for others.

Background Shared decision making (SDM) is a process where the patient and the health professional collaborate to make decisions based on both the patient’s preferences and the best available evidence. Patients with psychotic disorders are less involved in making decisions than they would like. More knowledge of these patients’ experiences of SDM may improve implementation. The study aim was to describe and explore experiences of SDM among patients with psychotic disorders in mental health care. Methods Individual interviews were conducted with ten persons with a psychotic disorder. They were service users of two community mental health centres. The transcribed material was analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results Four-fifths of the participants in this study found that they received insufficient information about their health situation and treatment options. All participants experienced that only one kind of treatment was often presented, which was usually medication. Although the study found that different degrees of involvement were practised, two thirds of the participants had little impact on choices to be made. This was despite the fact that they wanted to participate and felt capable of participating, even during periods of more severe illness. The participants described how important it was that SDM in psychosis was based on a trusting relationship, but stated that it took time to establish such a relationship. Conclusions This study with ten participants indicates that patients with psychotic disorders experienced that they were not allowed to participate as much as they wanted to and believed they were capable of. Some patients were involved, but to a lesser degree than in SDM. More and better tailored information communicated within a trusting relationship is needed to provide psychotic patients with a better basis for active involvement in decisions about their health care.