68Introduction<strong>Shared</strong> decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g (SDM) is a potentially radical change <strong>in</strong> current mentalhealth practice. It proposes that people learn how to be active participants <strong>in</strong> driv<strong>in</strong>gtheir own recovery, with the support of providers and others while work<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong>the limitations and constra<strong>in</strong>ts of the delivery system. Accomplish<strong>in</strong>g this requires afundamental change <strong>in</strong> historical relationships between providers and mental heathconsumers. It requires that providers and consumers learn different ways to talk toeach other <strong>in</strong> cl<strong>in</strong>ical encounters, to engage <strong>in</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g decisions, and ensure theirfollow through. SDM’s goal is to engage people <strong>in</strong> decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g and recovery.SDM embodies the recovery values of empowerment, choice, and self-determ<strong>in</strong>ation,and promises to “make recovery real” and facilitate <strong>in</strong>dividuals’ recovery as well asoptimize the use of resources.To accomplish the move to SDM, a number of strategies have been developed andtested that address the needs and concerns of providers and consumers, as well asthe changes required <strong>in</strong> the process of provid<strong>in</strong>g care. Interventions to tra<strong>in</strong> healthprofessionals have focused on <strong>in</strong>terview<strong>in</strong>g skills and patient-centered care. Interventionsfocused on consumers have <strong>in</strong>cluded chronic disease self-management,question-ask<strong>in</strong>g skills (with and without prompt sheets), decision aids, peer counsel<strong>in</strong>g,and other educational <strong>in</strong>terventions. The assumption has been that if providerslisten better, and consumers learn more about their choices and become more assertive,both providers and consumers will come together prepared to make encountersmore productive and the health care system will work better.In order to successfully implement SDM with<strong>in</strong> mental health care, it is necessaryto identify barriers that may orig<strong>in</strong>ate with providers, consumers, and the mentalhealth care system. This paper exam<strong>in</strong>es traditional provider and client perspectivesabout decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g, the legacy of judgments of competency (and the coercionsolution), as well system-level barriers to implementation. We describe an adaptationof the chronic care model (Bodenheimer, Wagner, & Grumbach, 2002) to mentalhealth, and describe promis<strong>in</strong>g approaches that help support consumers and providers<strong>in</strong> their efforts to achieve SDM. Our analysis reflects the current literature, ourperspectives as consumers and providers of mental health services, and our experiencesas developers of <strong>in</strong>terventions.<strong>Shared</strong> <strong>Decision</strong>-<strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mental</strong> <strong>Health</strong> <strong>Care</strong>:Practice, Research, and Future Directions
69Confront<strong>in</strong>g Critical Challenges: The IOM ReportHistorically, the mere diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder has been viewed as a barrierto the ability of the <strong>in</strong>dividual to successfully participate <strong>in</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g shared decisionsabout treatment and recovery. However, this perception was significantly challenged<strong>in</strong> the Institute of Medic<strong>in</strong>e’s (IOM) (2006) report on Improv<strong>in</strong>g the Quality of <strong>Care</strong>for <strong>Mental</strong> and Substance-Use Conditions. Follow<strong>in</strong>g a careful review of the literature,the IOM study committee concluded that the evidence shows:It is <strong>in</strong>appropriate to draw conclusions about <strong>in</strong>dividuals’ capacityfor decision mak<strong>in</strong>g solely on the basis of whether they are mentallyill, or even whether they have a particular mental illness, suchas schizophrenia. Many people with mental illnesses, <strong>in</strong>deed, manywith severe mental illnesses are not <strong>in</strong>competent on most measuresof competency. Even among patients hospitalized with schizophrenia,the MacArthur researchers found only 25 percent <strong>in</strong>competenton any given measure, and only 50 percent if the measures were aggregated(Applebaum, Applebaum, & Grisso, 1998). Other studieshave found a higher proportion of <strong>in</strong>dividuals with schizophrenia tobe competent <strong>in</strong> decision mak<strong>in</strong>g (Saks, Jeste, Granholm, Palmer, &Schneiderman, 2002). The evidence shows that poor decision mak<strong>in</strong>ghas a stronger relationship to cognitive problems (e.g., problems withmemory, attention, learn<strong>in</strong>g, and thought) and deficiencies <strong>in</strong> higherlevelexecutive functions than to the symptoms of mental illness, suchas psychosis. The m<strong>in</strong>ority who experience a decl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> such cognitiveabilities because of their mental illness may not be very different from<strong>in</strong>dividuals who have general medical conditions such as cerebrovasculardisease, are under the effects of serious emotional stress or<strong>in</strong> pa<strong>in</strong>, or generally have lower abilities to understand and analyze<strong>in</strong>formation (p. 98).Involuntary or coercive treatment is viewed by many as a potential barrier to SDM.The need to resort to coerced or forced treatment is <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly viewed as a failureof the service system and a result of <strong>in</strong>adequate public fund<strong>in</strong>g of the services andsupports needed to promote consumers’ voluntary participation. Such <strong>in</strong>terventionsreflect the <strong>in</strong>ability of mental health systems to equitably provide the best evidencebasedpractices and person-centered approaches. Involuntary treatment can occur<strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>patient or outpatient sett<strong>in</strong>g. Coercive treatments, such as seclusion and restra<strong>in</strong>tand forced medications, are more typically seen <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>patient sett<strong>in</strong>g. Involuntaryoutpatient commitment (IOC) most typically <strong>in</strong>volves issues related to adherenceto treatment and tak<strong>in</strong>g medications. Involuntary <strong>in</strong>patient treatment mosttypically <strong>in</strong>volves issues of the immediate safety and well-be<strong>in</strong>g of the <strong>in</strong>dividual andothers, and is seen to require conf<strong>in</strong>ement or conta<strong>in</strong>ment <strong>in</strong> a locked sett<strong>in</strong>g. Giventhe alienation, distrust, and disempowerment caused by <strong>in</strong>voluntary and coercivetreatment, it is a potential (but not an absolute) barrier to SDM.<strong>Shared</strong> <strong>Decision</strong>-<strong>Mak<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Mental</strong> <strong>Health</strong> <strong>Care</strong>:Practice, Research, and Future Directions
- Page 4:
iiContentsIntroduction ............
- Page 11 and 12:
5outpatient commitment (Holmes-Rovn
- Page 13 and 14:
7Advantages• Practitioners can be
- Page 15:
9Section 2The Practice of SharedDec
- Page 22 and 23:
16Section 3SDM ResearchCurrent rese
- Page 24: 18Mental health care providers are
- Page 27 and 28: 21want mental health treatment or d
- Page 29: 23Some participants raised concerns
- Page 37 and 38: 31Section 6ConclusionsShared decisi
- Page 39 and 40: 33Fellowes, D., Wilkinson, S., & Mo
- Page 41 and 42: 35Power, A. Kathryn. (July 10, 2007
- Page 43 and 44: 37Appendix AResourcesThis list is p
- Page 45 and 46: 39Appendix BShared Decision-MakingM
- Page 47 and 48: 41Annelle Primm, M.D., M.P.H.Direct
- Page 49 and 50: 43Supplement 1Shared Decision-Makin
- Page 51 and 52: 45IntroductionThe consumer-driven r
- Page 53 and 54: 47Background: Definitions of SDM an
- Page 55 and 56: 49• Freedom to live in the commun
- Page 57 and 58: 51providers only (Wills & Homes-Rov
- Page 59: 53SDM for Schizophrenia TreatmentBu
- Page 63 and 64: 57I interact with my consumers; I f
- Page 65 and 66: 59ReferencesAdams, J. R., & Drake,
- Page 67 and 68: 61Elwyn, G., Edwards, A., Kinnersle
- Page 69 and 70: 63Murray, E., Pollack, L., White, M
- Page 71 and 72: 65Thistlethwaite, J., Evans, R., Ti
- Page 73: 67AbstractShared decision-making is
- Page 77 and 78: 71into treatment should still be in
- Page 79 and 80: 73these approaches, people are more
- Page 81 and 82: 75consumers to engage with their pr
- Page 83 and 84: 77that were produced in the U.S., w
- Page 85 and 86: 79a healing partnership and develop
- Page 87 and 88: 81Shared Decision-Making in Mental
- Page 89 and 90: 83However, peer support requires st
- Page 91 and 92: 85ConclusionsImplementation of SDM
- Page 93 and 94: 87Fellowes, D., Wilkinson, S., & Mo
- Page 95 and 96: 89President’s Commission for the
- Page 97 and 98: 91Supplement 3Aids to Assist Shared
- Page 99 and 100: 93IntroductionSignificance of Share
- Page 101 and 102: 95In recent years, a variety of tec
- Page 103 and 104: 97• Provide balanced information,
- Page 105 and 106: 99Form of Access or AdministrationC
- Page 107 and 108: 101ences). Some of these Web-based
- Page 109 and 110: 103video about shared decision-maki
- Page 111 and 112: 105clarify one’s own values and p
- Page 113 and 114: 107potential results, than on quant
- Page 115 and 116: 109Once again, however, it is worth
- Page 117 and 118: 111who belong to minority groups or
- Page 119 and 120: 113Hamann, J., Langer, B., Winkler,
- Page 122: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN