ABSTRACT
RESUMEN La sujeción mecánica en psiquiatría es un procedimiento permitido en España que despierta importantes conflictos éticos. Diversos estudios sostienen que su uso depende de factores no clínicos, como las experiencias de los profesionales y las influencias del contexto, más que de factores clínicos (diagnósticos o síntomas). El objetivo del estudio es comprender las experiencias de profesionales de salud mental en formación en relación con el uso de sujeciones en la red de salud mental de Madrid. Es un estudio cualitativo de tipo fenomenológico mediante grupos focales, realizados en 2017. Las entrevistas fueron transcritas para su discusión y análisis temático mediante Atlas.ti. Los resultados descriptivos sugieren que estas medidas producen malestar y conflicto con relación al rol de cuidador y se observan estrategias de adaptación a los mismos. A partir de los hallazgos, se reflexiona acerca de aspectos de sus experiencias y del contexto que influyen en su uso, así como de las contradicciones del cuidado en la práctica clínica
ABSTRACT Mechanical restraint is a coercive procedure in psychiatry, which despite being permitted in Spain, raises significant ethical conflicts. Several studies argue that non-clinical factors - such as professionals' experiences and contextual influences - may play a more important role than clinical factors (diagnosis or symptoms) in determining how these measures are employed. The aim of this study is to understand how the experiences of mental health professionals in training relate to the use of mechanical restraints in Madrid's mental health network. Qualitative phenomenological research was conducted through focus groups in 2017. Interviews were transcribed for discussion and thematic analysis with Atlas.ti. Descriptive results suggest that these measures generate emotional distress and conflict with their role as caregivers. Our findings shed light on different factors related to their experiences and contexts that are important in understanding the use of mechanical restraint, as well as the contradictions of care in clinical practice
Subject(s)
Humans , Mental Health , Coercion , Spain , Restraint, Physical , Qualitative Research , Human RightsABSTRACT
Resumo Cuidados colaborativos entre saúde mental e atenção primária são efetivos em melhorar desfechos de saúde. O apoio matricial tem semelhanças com cuidados colaborativos pouco exploradas na literatura. Este artigo compara os dois modelos e analisa o apoio matricial a partir de evidências sobre cuidados colaborativos. Revisão narrativa. Componentes de cada modelo (atividades e dimensões) foram identificados e comparados. Evidências sobre cuidados colaborativos informaram análise de componentes semelhantes do apoio matricial. Foram identificadas dimensões do apoio matricial - suporte educacional, cuidado especializado, regulação, cogestão - e dos cuidados colaborativos - cuidado multiprofissional, comunicação sistemática, cuidado estruturado, suporte organizacional. A principal semelhança entre os modelos está nas atividades colaborativas diretas em torno de problemas clínicos, relacionadas a efetividade em estudos sobre cuidados colaborativos. Atividades colaborativas diretas são ponto positivo do apoio matricial. Cuidado estruturado e suporte em nível organizacional devem ser encorajados. Futuros estudos devem refinar as categorias propostas e explorar seu uso para desenvolvimento do apoio matricial.
Abstract Collaborative care between mental health and primary care is effective in improving health outcomes. The matrix support has similarities with collaborative care little explored in the literature. This article compares the two models and analyzes the matrix support from evidence on collaborative care. Narrative review. Components of each model (activities and dimensions) were identified and compared. Evidence on collaborative care informed analysis of similar components of matrix support. The dimensions of the matrix support - educational support, specialized care, regulation, co-management - and collaborative care - multiprofessional care, systematic communication, structured care, organizational support - were identified. The main similarity between the models lies in the direct collaborative activities around clinical problems which is related to effectiveness in collaborative care studies. Direct collaborative activities are a positive aspect of matrix support. Structured care and support at the organizational level should be encouraged. Future studies should refine the proposed categories and explore their use for the development of matrix support.
Subject(s)
Humans , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Models, Organizational , Mental Health Services/organization & administration , Mental Health , Cooperative BehaviorABSTRACT
Se describe la estructura y funcionamiento de una red pública de atención a la salud mental que cubre una población de 450.000 habitantes de la zona metropolitana este de Madrid. Se trata de una red que funciona como parte de un sistema público, universal y gratuito en el momento del pago, aunque tiene varios financiadores y parte de los proveedores son instituciones de titularidad privada que se financian mediante un concierto con la administración pública. Integra 26 dispositivos en los que trabajan 229 profesionales asignados a equipos interprofesionales. Además de las funciones asistenciales, la red desarrolla labores de docencia e investigación.
We describe the structure and functioning of a public mental health care network that covers a population of 450.000 inhabitants in the metropolitan east area of Madrid. It is a network that operates as part of a public, universal and without payment at the time of being attended National Health Service, although it is granted from several different public founders and some of the providers are private institutions employed by the public system. It includes 229 mental health professionals work in 26 integrated inter-professional teams. In addition to the functions of care, the network develops teaching and research work.