Clinical decision-making style preferences of European psychiatrists : Results from the Ambassadors survey in 38 countries

Background While shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style - Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians' expertise, training, and practice. Results SDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style. Conclusions The preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe.Peer reviewe

Excellent reliability and validity of the Addiction Medicine Training Need Assessment Scale across four countries.

BACKGROUND: Addiction is a context specific but common and devastating condition. Though several evidence-based treatments are available, many of them remain under-utilized, among others due to the lack of adequate training in addiction medicine (AM). AM Training needs may differ across countries because of difference in discipline and level of prior AM training or contextual factors like epidemiology and availability of treatment. For appropriate testing of training needs, reliability and validity are key issues. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the AM-TNA Scale: an instrument specifically designed to develop the competence-based curriculum of the Indonesian AM course. METHOD: In a cross-sectional study in Indonesia, Ireland, Lithuania and the Netherlands the AM-TNA was distributed among a convenience sample of health professionals working in addiction care in The Netherlands, Lithuania, Indonesia and General Practitioners in-training in Ireland. 428 respondents completed the AM-TNA scale. To assess the factor structure, we used explorative factor analysis. Reliability was tested using Cronbach's Alpha, ANOVA determined the discriminative validity. RESULTS: Validity: factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure: One on providing direct patient treatment and care (Factor 1: clinical) and one factor on facilitating/supporting direct patient treatment and care (Factor 2: non-clinical) AM competencies and a cumulative 76% explained variance. Reliability: Factor 1 α = 0.983 and Factor 2: α = 0.956, while overall reliability was (α = 0.986). The AM-TNA was able to differentiate training needs across groups of AM professionals on all 30 addiction medicine competencies (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In our study the AM-TNA scale had a strong two-factor structure and proofed to be a reliable and valid instrument. The next step should be the testing external validity, strengthening discriminant validity and assessing the re-test effect and measuring changes over time

Mental Health Services during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe:Results from the EPA Ambassadors Survey and implications for clinical practice

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused an unprecedented worldwide crisis affecting several sectors, including health, social care, economy and society at large. The World Health Organisation has emphasized that mental health care should be considered as one of the core sectors within the overall COVID-19 health response. By March 2020, recommendations for the organization of mental health services across Europe have been developed by several national and international mental health professional associations. METHODS: The European Psychiatric Association (EPA) surveyed a large European sample of psychiatrists, namely the “EPA Ambassadors”, on their clinical experience of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of psychiatric patients during the month of April 2020 in order to: a) identify and report the views and experiences of European psychiatrists; and b) represent and share these results with mental health policy makers at European level. Based on the recommendations issued by national psychiatric associations and on the results of our survey, we identified important organisational aspects of mental health care during the peak of the first wave of the COVID-19. RESULTS: While most of the recommendations followed the same principles, significant differences between countries emerged in service delivery, mainly relating to referrals to outpatients and for inpatient admission, assessments and treatment for people with mental disorders. Compared to previous months, the mean number of patients treated by psychiatrists in outpatient settings halved in April 2020. In the same period, the number of mentally ill patients tested for, or developing, COVID-19 was low. In most of countries, traditional face-to-face visits were replaced by online remote consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings we recommend: 1) to implement professional guidelines into practice and harmonize psychiatric clinical practice across Europe; 2) to monitor the treatment outcomes of patients with COVID-19 and pre-existing mental disorders; 3) to keep psychiatric services active by using all available options (for example telepsychiatry); 4) to increase communication and cooperation between different health care providers

Clinical decision-making style preferences of European psychiatrists: Results from the Ambassadors survey in 38 countries

Background While shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style - Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians' expertise, training, and practice. Results SDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style. Conclusions The preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe