Department of Studies on Alcohol and Drug Dependence, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, ul. Sobieskiego 9, 02-957, Warsaw, Poland.
Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry (World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Services Development), Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2020 Feb;55(2):205-216. doi: 10.1007/s00127-019-01757-z. Epub 2019 Sep 6.
The current debate on organisation of the mental health care raises a question whether to prioritise specialisation of clinical teams or personal continuity of care. The article explores the experiences of patients and clinicians regarding specialisation (SC) and personal continuity (PCC) of care in five European countries.
Data were obtained via in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients (N = 188) suffering from mental disorders (F20-49) and with clinicians (N = 63). A maximum variation sampling was applied to assume representation of patients and of clinicians with different characteristics. The qualitative data from each country were transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed through a thematic analysis method.
Many positive experiences of patients and clinicians with the PCC approach relate to the high quality of therapeutic relationship and the smooth transition between hospital and community care. Many positive experiences of patients and clinicians with the SC approach relate to concepts of autonomy and choice and the higher adequacy of diagnosis and treatment. Clinicians stressed system aspects of providing mental health care: more effective management structure and higher professionalization of care within SC approach and the lower risk of disengagement from treatment and reduced need for coercion, restraint, forced medication or involuntary admission within PCC.
Neither the PCC, nor the SC approach meets the needs and expectations of all patients (and clinicians). Therefore, future reforms of mental health services should offer a free choice of either approach, considering that there is no evidence of differences in patient outcomes between PCC and SC approaches.
当前关于精神卫生保健组织的争论提出了一个问题,即是否要优先考虑临床团队的专业化还是护理的个人连续性。本文探讨了五个欧洲国家的患者和临床医生对护理专业化(SC)和个人连续性(PCC)的经验。
通过对患有精神障碍(F20-49)的患者(N=188)和临床医生(N=63)进行深入的半结构化访谈,获得了数据。采用最大变异抽样法,以确保患者和具有不同特征的临床医生的代表性。对每个国家的定性数据进行逐字转录、编码,并通过主题分析方法进行分析。
许多患者和临床医生对 PCC 方法的积极体验与治疗关系的高质量和医院与社区护理之间的顺利过渡有关。许多患者和临床医生对 SC 方法的积极体验与自主权和选择的概念以及更高的诊断和治疗准确性有关。临床医生强调了提供精神卫生保健的系统方面:SC 方法中更有效的管理结构和更高的护理专业化,以及在 PCC 中降低治疗脱离和减少强制、约束、强制药物治疗或非自愿入院的风险。
无论是 PCC 还是 SC 方法都不能满足所有患者(和临床医生)的需求和期望。因此,未来的精神卫生服务改革应该提供两种方法的自由选择,因为没有证据表明 PCC 和 SC 方法在患者结局方面存在差异。