Cargando…

Responsibilities with conflicting priorities: a qualitative study of ACT providers’ experiences with community treatment orders

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe mental illness may be subjected to Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) in order to secure that the patients adhere to treatment. Few studies have investigated the use of CTOs within an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) setting, and little is known about how the tensi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stuen, Hanne Kilen, Landheim, Anne, Rugkåsa, Jorun, Wynn, Rolf
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5907185/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29669558
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3097-7
_version_ 1783315479994040320
author Stuen, Hanne Kilen
Landheim, Anne
Rugkåsa, Jorun
Wynn, Rolf
author_facet Stuen, Hanne Kilen
Landheim, Anne
Rugkåsa, Jorun
Wynn, Rolf
author_sort Stuen, Hanne Kilen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patients with severe mental illness may be subjected to Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) in order to secure that the patients adhere to treatment. Few studies have investigated the use of CTOs within an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) setting, and little is known about how the tension between the patients’ autonomy and the clinicians’ responsibility to act in the patients’ best interest are resolved in practice. The aim of this study was to explore the service providers’ experiences with CTOs within an ACT setting. METHODS: The study was based on reviews of case files of 15 patients, eight individual qualitative in depth interviews and four focus group interviews with service providers involved in ACT and decisions related to CTOs. A modified grounded theory approach was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The main theme ‘responsibility with conflicting priorities’ emerged from data analysis (case file reviews, individual interviews and focus group interviews). The balance between coercive approaches and the emphasis on promoting patient autonomy was seen as problematic. The participants saw few alternatives to CTOs as long-term measures to secure ongoing treatment for some of the patients. However, participants perceived the ACT model’s comprehensive scope as an opportunity to build rapport with patients and thereby better meet their needs. The team approach, the ACT providers’ commitment to establish supportive relationships and the frequent meetings with patients in their home environment were highlighted. The ACT approach gave them insight into patients’ everyday lives and, in some cases a greater sense of security when considering whether to take patients off CTOs. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the participants viewed CTOs as helpful in securing long-term treatment for patients. CTO decision-making was described as challenging and complex and presented the providers with many dilemmas. The ACT approach was considered as helpful in that it afforded comprehensive, patient-centered support and opportunities to build rapport. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3097-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5907185
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59071852018-04-30 Responsibilities with conflicting priorities: a qualitative study of ACT providers’ experiences with community treatment orders Stuen, Hanne Kilen Landheim, Anne Rugkåsa, Jorun Wynn, Rolf BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Patients with severe mental illness may be subjected to Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) in order to secure that the patients adhere to treatment. Few studies have investigated the use of CTOs within an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) setting, and little is known about how the tension between the patients’ autonomy and the clinicians’ responsibility to act in the patients’ best interest are resolved in practice. The aim of this study was to explore the service providers’ experiences with CTOs within an ACT setting. METHODS: The study was based on reviews of case files of 15 patients, eight individual qualitative in depth interviews and four focus group interviews with service providers involved in ACT and decisions related to CTOs. A modified grounded theory approach was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The main theme ‘responsibility with conflicting priorities’ emerged from data analysis (case file reviews, individual interviews and focus group interviews). The balance between coercive approaches and the emphasis on promoting patient autonomy was seen as problematic. The participants saw few alternatives to CTOs as long-term measures to secure ongoing treatment for some of the patients. However, participants perceived the ACT model’s comprehensive scope as an opportunity to build rapport with patients and thereby better meet their needs. The team approach, the ACT providers’ commitment to establish supportive relationships and the frequent meetings with patients in their home environment were highlighted. The ACT approach gave them insight into patients’ everyday lives and, in some cases a greater sense of security when considering whether to take patients off CTOs. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the participants viewed CTOs as helpful in securing long-term treatment for patients. CTO decision-making was described as challenging and complex and presented the providers with many dilemmas. The ACT approach was considered as helpful in that it afforded comprehensive, patient-centered support and opportunities to build rapport. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3097-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-04-18 /pmc/articles/PMC5907185/ /pubmed/29669558 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3097-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Stuen, Hanne Kilen
Landheim, Anne
Rugkåsa, Jorun
Wynn, Rolf
Responsibilities with conflicting priorities: a qualitative study of ACT providers’ experiences with community treatment orders
title Responsibilities with conflicting priorities: a qualitative study of ACT providers’ experiences with community treatment orders
title_full Responsibilities with conflicting priorities: a qualitative study of ACT providers’ experiences with community treatment orders
title_fullStr Responsibilities with conflicting priorities: a qualitative study of ACT providers’ experiences with community treatment orders
title_full_unstemmed Responsibilities with conflicting priorities: a qualitative study of ACT providers’ experiences with community treatment orders
title_short Responsibilities with conflicting priorities: a qualitative study of ACT providers’ experiences with community treatment orders
title_sort responsibilities with conflicting priorities: a qualitative study of act providers’ experiences with community treatment orders
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5907185/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29669558
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3097-7
work_keys_str_mv AT stuenhannekilen responsibilitieswithconflictingprioritiesaqualitativestudyofactprovidersexperienceswithcommunitytreatmentorders
AT landheimanne responsibilitieswithconflictingprioritiesaqualitativestudyofactprovidersexperienceswithcommunitytreatmentorders
AT rugkasajorun responsibilitieswithconflictingprioritiesaqualitativestudyofactprovidersexperienceswithcommunitytreatmentorders
AT wynnrolf responsibilitieswithconflictingprioritiesaqualitativestudyofactprovidersexperienceswithcommunitytreatmentorders