18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Joint Crisis Plan: A Powerful Tool to Promote Mental Health

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose: The Joint Crisis Plan (JCP) has received growing interest in clinical and research settings. JCP is a type of psychiatric advance statement that describes how to recognize early signs of crisis and how to manage crises. The purpose of the present study, to our knowledge the first to be conducted on this topic in the French-speaking context and to include inpatients, was to describe the content of JCPs and how they are perceived by patients and the providers.

          Methods: The study used an exploratory, mixed, sequential method. Existing JCPs were retrospectively collected in several clinical contexts (hospital, community settings, and sheltered accommodation). Based on their analyses, we conducted semi-structured interviews including some rating scales on the perception of the JCPs among patients and providers in these settings. For the qualitative analyses, content analyses were conducted with a hybrid approach using NVivo 12 software. Data were double-coded and discussed with a third researcher until agreement was reached.

          Results: One hundred eighty-four JCPs were collected retrospectively and 24 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 12 providers. No relatives could be included in the research process. The content of the studied JCPs was relevant and indicated that patients had good knowledge of themselves and their illness. Improvements in the quality of the therapeutic relationship, respect for patients' choices and wishes, and a greater sense of control of their illness were reported. The JCP was perceived as a very useful tool by patients and providers. Concerning JCP limitations, lack of staff training, difficulties with the shared decision-making process, and the poor availability of the JCPs when needed were reported.

          Conclusion: The study highlights that JCPs may be used with patients suffering from a large variety of psychiatric disorders in different care settings. The JCP is perceived as very useful by both patients and providers. The promising results of this study support the promotion of the wide use of JCPs with patients who have experienced crises. It is important to continue to research JCPs through impact studies that include family members.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsory treatment in psychiatry: single blind randomised controlled trial.

          To investigate whether a form of advance agreement for people with severe mental illness can reduce the use of inpatient services and compulsory admission or treatment. Single blind randomised controlled trial, with randomisation of individual patients. The investigator was blind to allocation. Eight community mental health teams in southern England. 160 people with an operational diagnosis of psychotic illness or non-psychotic bipolar disorder who had experienced a hospital admission within the previous two years. The joint crisis plan was formulated by the patient, care coordinator, psychiatrist, and project worker and contained contact information, details of mental and physical illnesses, treatments, indicators for relapse, and advance statements of preferences for care in the event of future relapse. Admission to hospital, bed days, and use of the Mental Health Act over 15 month follow up. Use of the Mental Health Act was significantly reduced for the intervention group, 13% (10/80) of whom experienced compulsory admission or treatment compared with 27% (21/80) of the control group (risk ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.95, P = 0.028). As a consequence, the mean number of days of detention (days spent as an inpatient while under a section of the Mental Health Act) for the whole intervention group was 14 compared with 31 for the control group (difference 16, 0 to 36, P = 0.04). For those admitted under a section of the Mental Health Act, the number of days of detention was similar in the two groups (means 114 and 117, difference 3, -61 to 67, P = 0.98). The intervention group had fewer admissions (risk ratio 0.69, 0.45 to 1.04, P = 0.07). There was no evidence for differences in bed days (total number of days spent as an inpatient) (means 32 and 36, difference 4, -18 to 26, P = 0.15 for the whole sample; means 107 and 83, difference -24, -72 to 24, P = 0.39 for those admitted). Use of joint crisis plans reduced compulsory admissions and treatment in patients with severe mental illness. The reduction in overall admission was less. This is the first structured clinical intervention that seems to reduce compulsory admission and treatment in mental health services.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Stigma and mental health professionals: a review of the evidence on an intricate relationship.

            In the past decade, mental health professionals have initiated a number of national and international efforts against the stigma of mental illness. While largely successful in beating stigma and discrimination, these programmes have, in part, been criticized to be largely uninformed by the lived realities of people with mental illness and their families. Some critics claimed that anti-stigma efforts led by mental health professionals were in fact a concealed attempt at de-stigmatizing psychiatry itself as a profession. This paper will attempt to throw light on the various ways in which mental health professionals are 'entangled' in anti-stigma activities. It will outline the complex relationships between stigma and the psychiatric profession, presenting evidence on how its members can simultaneously be stigmatizers, stigma recipients and powerful agents of de-stigmatization. In exploring the role of mental health professionals as targets of stigma, new findings will be presented on the role of stigma as a professional stressor in psychiatry. Conclusions will be drawn on how the pursuit of professional self-interest can be a legitimate goal of anti-stigma programmes. Further, ways in which acknowledging psychiatry's own agenda can contribute to both credibility and success of fighting stigma from within psychiatry will be discussed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Risk factors for suicide within a year of discharge from psychiatric hospital: a systematic meta-analysis.

              The increased risk of suicide in the period after discharge from a psychiatric hospital is a well-recognized and serious problem. The aim of this study was to establish the risk factors for suicide in the year after discharge from psychiatric hospitals and their usefulness in categorizing patients as high or low risk for suicide in the year following discharge. A systematic meta-analysis of controlled studies of suicide within a year of discharge from psychiatric hospitals. There was a moderately strong association between both a history of self-harm (OR = 3.15) and depressive symptoms (OR = 2.70) and post-discharge suicide. Factors weakly associated with post-discharge suicide were reports of suicidal ideas (OR = 2.47), an unplanned discharge (OR = 2.44), recent social difficulty (OR = 2.23), a diagnosis of major depression (OR = 1.91) and male sex (OR = 1.58). Patients who had less contact with services after discharge were significantly less likely to commit suicide (OR = 0.69). High risk patients were more likely to commit suicide than other discharged patients, but the strength of this association was not much greater than the association with some individual risk factors (OR = 3.94, sensitivity = 0.40, specificity = 0.87). No factor, or combination of factors, was strongly associated with suicide in the year after discharge. About 3% of patients categorized as being at high risk can be expected to commit suicide in the year after discharge. However, about 60% of the patients who commit suicide are likely to be categorized as low risk. Risk categorization is of no value in attempts to decrease the numbers of patients who will commit suicide after discharge.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychiatry
                Front Psychiatry
                Front. Psychiatry
                Frontiers in Psychiatry
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-0640
                19 March 2021
                2021
                : 12
                : 621436
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital Centre , Lausanne, Switzerland
                [2] 2La Source, School of Nursing, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland , Lausanne, Switzerland
                Author notes

                Edited by: Hector Wing Hong Tsang, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

                Reviewed by: Johannes Hamann, Technical University of Munich, Germany; Frances Louise Dark, Metro South Addiction and Mental Health Services, Australia

                *Correspondence: Pierre Lequin Pierre.Lequin@ 123456chuv.ch

                This article was submitted to Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Rehabilitation, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyt.2021.621436
                8017151
                33815165
                ba3328b0-e9b1-41af-b042-a6924b966a3b
                Copyright © 2021 Lequin, Ferrari, Suter, Milovan, Besse, Silva, Golay, Bonsack and Favrod.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 26 October 2020
                : 09 February 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 24, Pages: 10, Words: 8641
                Categories
                Psychiatry
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                mental health,joint crisis plan,shared decision making,recovery,therapeutic collaboration,self-management

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content69

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors223