Promoting and hindering factors in the use of advance statements by Australian mental health clinicians

Author:

James Russell1ORCID,Maude Phil2ORCID,Searby Adam3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Nursing, College of Health and Medicine University of Tasmania Hobart Tasmania Australia

2. La Trobe Rural Health School, Violet Vines Marshman Centre for Rural Health Research Latrobe University Melbourne Victoria Australia

3. Institute for Health Transformation, School of Nursing & Midwifery Deakin University Geelong Victoria Australia

Abstract

Accessible SummaryWhat Is Known on the Subject? Australia is a commonwealth of federated states and territories with each having unique mental health legislation. Victoria implemented advance statements based on legislation from overseas jurisdictions such as Scotland. The aim of this Victorian legislation was to underpin an individual's autonomy and decision‐making in relation to treatment, particularly compulsory treatment. Advance statements allow individuals within the healthcare setting to document preferences for care and treatment during times of decompensated mental health, including informing nominated persons and preferences for recovery‐oriented care; however, advance statements continue to attract barriers in their implementation and use. What this Study Adds to Existing Knowledge? This paper focuses on legislation within one jurisdiction, Victoria, highlighting that several barriers to uptake exist, including uncertainty around the legal status of advance statements, the ideal setting to implement advance statements and concern around perceived consumer capacity to contribute to developing advance statements. There are substantial differences of opinion regarding adherence to treatment and recovery preferences contained within the advance statement, especially when decisions are made in the context of decompensated mental health. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) model has been used to formulate recommendations in several other health studies, but to date has not been used to provide recommendations for greater implementation of advance statements. Implementation science is a contemporary research translation movement that seeks to identify factors and strategies that influence the adoption and integration of interventions like advance statements in real world settings. For this study it has been useful to identify barriers, consider implementation strategies and link this with policy frameworks to support practice change. What are the Implications for Practice? Our study revealed that real challenges exist for mental health clinicians in adopting advance statements despite them having a strong held intention to empower service users to play a greater role in their own treatment and care decisions. The facilitators identified in this study highlight the notion that advance statements, and the concept of supported decision‐making are needed in contemporary mental health care. Implementation science can assist in identifying barriers and suggesting facilitators including enhanced training, incentivization of advance statement creation, and greater awareness of the overarching purpose and principle of advance statement creation. Continued support and training in implementing and maintaining advance statements is required if mental health clinicians are to drive the uptake of this important reform to mental health legislation. Training needs to be provided that will address attitudes, and strongly held beliefs that pose barriers to the use of advance statements. AbstractIntroductionAdvance statements, also known as advance directives or psychiatric wills, provide individuals the opportunity to document care and recovery preferences during a period of mental ill health. Although the use of advance statements has gained momentum, little research has explored the factors that promote or hinder further uptake.AimTo determine the factors that promote or hinder the uptake of advance statements.MethodCross‐sectional online survey of healthcare workers (n = 190).ResultsPromoting factors include high perceived value of advance statements, particularly their role in recovery focussed care, while hindering factors include disagreement or responsibility for advance statement creation and legal status.DiscussionThis study indicates that several hindering factors or barriers to advance statement uptake remain, and until these factors are addressed future implementation is arguably hindered. In this paper, we have used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) model to outline suggestions to address hindering factors to implementation and guide future implementation strategies for advance statement uptake and practice change.Implications for PracticeThe ongoing uptake of advance statements requires tailored implementation strategies address hindering factors. Strong promoting factors, such as the shared belief in the advance statement model and its role in recovery focused care, should be considered a strong foundation for implementation strategies.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Pshychiatric Mental Health

Reference40 articles.

1. Psychiatric Advance Directives and the Right to Refuse Treatment in Canada

2. Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act. (2006) (Vic).https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in‐force/acts/charter‐human‐rights‐and‐responsibilities‐act‐2006/015

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3