No-Restraint Committed General Hospital Psychiatric Units (SPDCs) in Italy-A Descriptive Organizational Study.

This study describes and explores the application of no-restraint policies in General Hospital Psychiatric Units (GHPUs) in Italy, a country pioneering in deinstitutionalization and psychiatric reform. The research aims to assess the organizational characteristics and effectiveness of no-restraint practices, contributing to the global discourse on humane psychiatric care. Following a purposive sampling approach, a nationwide descriptive study was conducted involving a detailed online survey distributed to 24 GHPUs actively engaged in or aspiring toward no-restraint practices. The survey, comprising 60 items across seven sections, gathered comprehensive data on the structural, organizational, and operational dimensions of the units, along with the prevalence and management of restraint episodes. Results reveal a significant commitment to no-restraint policies, with 14 GHPUs reporting zero restraint incidents in 2022. Despite variations in infrastructure and staffing, a common thread was the implementation of systematic procedures and risk management training aimed at reducing coercive practices. The study identified a correlation between the use of exclusive garden spaces and an increased incidence of restraints, suggesting nuanced factors influencing restraint practices. The findings underscore the viability and ethical alignment of no-restraint practices within psychiatric care, highlighting the crucial role of organizational protocols and training. This research adds empirical weight to the advocacy for restraint-free environments in mental health settings, signaling a paradigm shift toward more humane and rights-respecting psychiatric care.

Open Dialogue services around the world: a scoping survey exploring organizational characteristics in the implementation of the Open Dialogue approach in mental health services.

Objective: This cross-sectional study investigates the characteristics and practices of mental health care services implementing Open Dialogue (OD) globally. Methods: A structured questionnaire including a self-assessment scale to measure teams' adherence to Open Dialogue principles was developed. Data were collected from OD teams in various countries. Confirmatory Composite Analysis was employed to assess the validity and reliability of the OD self-assessment measurement. Partial Least Square multiple regression analysis was used to explore characteristics and practices which represent facilitating and hindering factors in OD implementation. Results: The survey revealed steady growth in the number of OD services worldwide, with 142 teams across 24 countries by 2022, primarily located in Europe. Referrals predominantly came from general practitioners, hospitals, and self-referrals. A wide range of diagnostic profiles was treated with OD, with psychotic disorders being the most common. OD teams comprised professionals from diverse backgrounds with varying levels of OD training. Factors positively associated with OD self-assessment included a high percentage of staff with OD training, periodic supervisions, research capacity, multi-professional teams, self-referrals, outpatient services, younger client groups, and the involvement of experts by experience in periodic supervision. Conclusion: The findings provide valuable insights into the characteristics and practices of OD teams globally, highlighting the need for increased training opportunities, supervision, and research engagement. Future research should follow the development of OD implementation over time, complement self-assessment with rigorous observations and external evaluations, focus on involving different stakeholders in the OD-self-assessment and investigate the long-term outcomes of OD in different contexts.

Grounding co-writing: An analysis of the theoretical basis of a new approach in mental health care.

This contribution aims to highlight the theoretical and epistemological premises of the co-writing experience, a practice where a clinician and a patient are mutually engaged in jointly or collaboratively writing a narrative related to the patient's experience. Unlike a typical set of therapeutic techniques, co-writing is based on sharing perspectives and meanings about the experience of crisis, recovery, and the therapeutic process. The paper identifies and briefly describes four non-clinical epistemological paradigms on which it is grounded: ethnography, values-based practice, narrative care, and phenomenology. Although they differ in several ways, at the same time, they seem to share some common features that the paper investigates and comments. For clinicians, nurses, researchers and Mental Health Service managers, attention to the users and to the improvement of their active roles represents not only a strategy for the empowerment of results, but also the access door to a different perspective which relies on a renewed conceptualization of the mental disease nature that may lead to overcoming the epistemic asymmetry between the 'expert' and the 'other' in favor of intersubjective dialogue.

Implementation of open dialogue in Germany: Efforts, challenges, and obstacles.

Purpose: The Open Dialogue (OD) approach has been implemented in different countries worldwide. OD not only depends on therapeutic principles but also requires a distinct set of structural changes that may impede its full implementation. In Germany, OD is currently practiced in different mental health care settings across the country. Yet, full implementation of OD principles is limited due to the extreme structural and financial fragmentation of the German mental health care system. With this as a background, the aim of this study was to investigate the efforts, challenges and obstacles of OD implementation in Germany. Methods: This article presents the German results from the international HOPEnDIALOGUE survey, supplemented with expert interview data. Thirty eight teams currently providing OD took part in the survey. Sixteen expert interviews were carried out with stakeholders from various care settings. Survey data were analyzed descriptively and the qualitative data were evaluated using a thematic analysis approach. Results: While having to adapt to the fragmented German health care system, OD has been mainly implemented from outpatient service providers and stand-alone services. About half of the teams implemented OD under the conditions of cross-sectoral model contracts and, thus, are considerably limited when it comes to OD implementation. Altogether, OD is not implemented to its full extent in each of the institutions surveyed. Similarly, the expert interviews revealed various challenges that mainly relate to the realization of OD's structural principles, whereas the implementation of its therapeutic benefits remains less affected. However, these challenges have managed to lead to great commitment by single teams and a certain level of implementation of OD-related concepts. Conclusion: OD in Germany can currently only be fully implemented under the cross-sectoral care model contract system that is often temporary, thus significantly hindering its continuous development. Any evaluation of OD's effectiveness in Germany thus needs to take into account the fragmented nature of the country's health care system and control for the multiple barriers that impede implementation. Reforms of the German health care system are also urgently needed to create more favorable conditions for the implementation of OD.

Dialogue as a Response to the Psychiatrization of Society? Potentials of the Open Dialogue Approach.

In recent decades, the use of psychosocial and psychiatric care systems has increased worldwide. A recent article proposed the concept of psychiatrization as an explanatory framework, describing multiple processes responsible for the spread of psychiatric concepts and forms of treatment. This article aims to explore the potentials of the Open Dialogue (OD) approach for engaging in less psychiatrizing forms of psychosocial support. While OD may not be an all-encompassing solution to de-psychiatrization, this paper refers to previous research showing that OD has the potential to 1) limit the use of neuroleptics, 2), reduce the incidences of mental health problems and 3) decrease the use of psychiatric services. It substantiates these potentials to de-psychiatrize psychosocial support by exploring the OD's internal logic, its use of language, its processes of meaning-making, its notion of professionalism, its promotion of dialogue and how OD is set up structurally. The conclusion touches upon the dangers of co-optation, formalization and universalization of the OD approach and stresses the need for more societal, layperson competencies in dealing with psychosocial crises.

Comparison of a co-produced mental health service to traditional services: A co-produced mixed-methods cross-sectional study.

This study investigates the differences between a co-produced experimental mental health centre and traditional day centres. For this purpose, we used a collaborative and mixed-method approach in two complementary studies: (i) a quantitative cross-sectional study designed to compare users' hospitalization rates and their use of psychiatric medications and (ii) a qualitative study designed to explore and document the experienced differences between co-produced and traditional services. In the quantitative cross-sectional study, surveys were administered to 37 users of one co-produced mental health service and to 40 users of traditional mental health services. A negative binomial regression analysis was performed to examine the relationships between predictors and users' hospitalization rates. After adjusting for the potential confounders, users of the co-produced centre reported a 63.2% reduced rate of hospitalizations compared with users of traditional mental health services (P = 0.002). Furthermore, 39% of users of the co-produced centre reported a reduction or even withdrawal from psychiatric medications against 22% of the comparison group (P = 0.036). In the qualitative study, six main differences emerged from a thematic analysis of a large user-led focus group. In the participants' experiences, the co-produced service focused on (i) parity and respectful relationships, (ii) people's strengths, (iii) freedom, (iv) psychological continuity, (v) social inclusion, and (vi) recovery orientation. Our research provides empirical evidence concerning the 'preventive aspect' of co-produced mental health services. Additionally, new insights into how different stakeholders, particularly users of co-produced mental health services, experience the differences between co-produced and traditional mental health services are provided.