Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T15:48:25.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems in psychiatric care of ‘difficult patients’: a Delphi-study*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2011

Bauke Koekkoek ,
Berno Van Meijel ,
Aart Schene  and
Giel Hutschemaekers
Bauke Koekkoek*
Affiliation:
Altrecht Mental Health Care, Department of Outpatient Community Care, Zeist (The Netherlands) Gelderse Roos Mental Health Care, Institute for Professionalization, Wolfheze (The Netherlands)
Berno Van Meijel
Affiliation:
INHolland University for Applied Sciences, Research Group Mental Health Nursing. Amsterdam (The Netherlands)
Aart Schene
Affiliation:
Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychiatry Amsterdam (The Netherlands)
Giel Hutschemaekers
Affiliation:
Institute for Professionalizzation, Gelderse Roos Mental Health Care, Wolfheze (The Netherlands) Radboud, Academic Centre of Social Sciences, Nijmegen (The Netherlands)
*
Address fo correspondence: Mr. B. Koekkoek, Oude Arnhemseweg 260 3705 BK Zeist (The Netherlands). Fax: +31-306965466 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Aims – ‘difficult patients’ may evoke strong feelings in health professionals. The ambivalent attitude of, especially, non-psychotic chronic patients towards psychiatric care may be frustrating and burdensome to professionals. Many of these patients are cared for in non-specialized services, where professionals are often more used to working with psychotic patients. Specific problems with ‘difficult’ non-psychotic patients may occur, and hamper the quality of care offered. The aim of this research is to determine precisely what problems psychiatric professionals perceive in contact with non-psychotic chronic patients in order to identify starting points for alternative or improved care in non-specialized services. Methods – a modified five-phase Delphi study with three groups of eight participants from was used to identify and prioritize experts' judgments. Results – 46 problems were identified of which some were relevant to one or two subgroups and some were relevant to the entire group. Conclusions – a program that combines a coherent view at services level, with support and increased communication at the interprofessional level (e.g. through regular supervision, sharing of case-loads) may be highly beneficial to non-specialized services.

Declaration of Interest: None for any author. Funding for this study was provided by ZonMW ‘Geestkracht’ (Grant 100–002–031), Altrecht Mental Health Care and Gelderse Roos Mental Health Care.

Keywords

community mental health teamsprofessional-patient relationssocial psychiatrylong-term careDelphi
Type
Original Articles
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 323 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Contributions: BK designed the study, recruited participants, col-lected and analysed data and drafted the manuscript. BvM designed the study, collected and analysed data and co-drafted the manuscript. AS and GH designed the study, analysed data an co-drafted the manuscript.

References

REFERENCES

Corrigan, P.W. (2006). Language and stigma. Psychiatric Services 57, 1218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dewan, M.J. & Pies, R.J. (Eds) (2001). The Difficult-to-treat Psychiatric Patient. American Psychiatric Press: Washington DC.Google Scholar
Fiander, M. & Burns, T. (1998). Essential components of schizophrenia care: a Delphi approach. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 98, 400–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, N., Chisholm, B., Burns, T. & Harvey, K. (2000). Community mental health team case-loads and diagnostic case-mix. Psychiatric Bulletin 24, 290–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, J.E. (1978). Taking care of the hateful patient. New England Journal of Medicine 298, 883–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasson, F., Keeney, S. & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing 32, 1008–1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinshelwood, R.D. (1999). The difficult patient. The role of ‘scientific psychiatry’ in understanding patients with chronic schizophrenia or severe personality disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry 174, 187–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joffe, H. & Yardley, L. (2003). Content and thematic analysis. In Research Methods in Clinical and Health Psychology (ed. Marks, D. and Yardley, L.), pp. 56–68. Sage: London.Google Scholar
Jones, J. & Hunter, D. (1995). Consensus methods for medical and health services research. British Medical Journal 311, 376–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendell, R.E. (2001). The distinction between mental and physical illness. British Journal of Psychiatry 178, 490–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kent, S. & Yellowlees, P. (1995). The relationship between social factors and frequent use of psychiatric services. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 29, 403–408CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kent, S., Fogarty, M. & Yellowlees, P. (1995). A review of studies of heavy users of psychiatric services in a public mental health service. Psychiatric Services 46, 1247–1253Google Scholar
Keown, P., Holloway, F. & Kuipers, E. (2002). The prevalence of personality disorders, psychotic disorders and affective disorders amongst the patients seen by a community mental health team in London. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 37, 225–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal 311, 299–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knudsen, H.C., Vázquez-Barquero, J.L., Welcher, B., Gaite, L., Becker, T., Chisholm, D., Rugerri, M., Schene, A.H. & Thornicroft, G. (2000). Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of outcome measurements for schizophrenia: EPSILON Study 2. British Journal of Psychiatry 177, s8–s14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koekkoek, B., van Meijel, B. & Hutschemaekers, G. (2006). “Difficult patients” in mental health care: a review. Psychiatric Services 57, 795–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koekkoek, B., van Meijel, B. & Hutschemaekers, G. (in press). Community mental health care for patients with severe personality disorder: a narrative review. Psychiatric Bulletin.Google Scholar
Roick, C., Gartner, A., Heider, D. & Angermeyer, M.C. (2002). [Heavy users of psychiatric care]. Psychiatrische Praxis 29, 334–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruggeri, M., Leese, M., Thornicroft, G., Bisoffi, G. & Tansella, M. (2000). Definition and prevalence of severe and persistent mental illness. British Journal of Psychiatry 177, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schinnar, A.P., Rothbard, A.B., Kanter, R. & Jung, Y.S. (1990). An empirical literature review of definitions of severe and persistent mental illness. American Journal of Psychiatry 147, 1602–1608.Google ScholarPubMed
Tylee, A. & Haddad, M. (2007). Managing complex problems: treatment for common mental disorders in the UK. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale, 16, 302–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrer, P. (2007). The future of specialist community teams in the care of those with severe mental illness. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 16, 225–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrer, P. (2008). Severe Personality Disorders: Everyday Issues in Clinical Practice (book review). British Journal of Psychiatry 193, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar