Nurturing communication by health professionals toward patients: A communication accommodation theory approach

This study explores the role of nurturing communication in distinguishing interpersonal and intergroup interactions between health professionals and patients, from the perspective of communication accommodation theory (CAT). Participants (47 men and 87 women) rated videotapes of actual hospital consultations on 12 goal and 16 strategy items derived from CAT. Health professionals in interpersonal interactions were perceived to pay more attention to relationship and emotional needs and to use more nurturant discourse management and emotional expression. These results point the way toward elucidating the perceived optimal balance in accommodative behavior, both group based and interpersonal, in these contexts, and they highlight the importance of nurturant communication to this process.

Diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders: a survey of Singapore mental health professionals

Background: A series of surveys of mental health literacy have been undertaken in Australia, involving members of the general public as well as general practitioners and mental health professionals, whereby respondents consider vignettes of depression and of schizophrenia, offer a diagnosis and rate a series of possible interventions for their judged helpfulness. A similar survey was undertaken in Singapore and is reported in this paper. Methods: The survey was undertaken at a large state psychiatric hospital with staff (psychiatrists, allied health professionals, psychiatrically and generally trained nursing staff) rating a vignette of mania, in addition to the vignettes derived in Australia for depression and schizophrenia, and with the Australian intervention options extended somewhat to respect Singapore facilities. Results: Responses of those in the four professional groups were compared. The psychiatrists were highly accurate in generating diagnoses, other staff somewhat less so for diagnosing depression (with a percentage instead choosing a diagnosis of stress) and mania (with a percentage instead diagnosing a schizophrenic condition). Reported helpfulness ratings identified those interventions judged consensually as likely to be helpful or harmful, as well as establishing some differences across the four professional groups. Conclusions: The consensus decisions of helpful treatments for depression and schizophrenia revealed very similar findings to judgements made by Australian professionals. The treated outcome of schizophrenia was judged as somewhat worse than that for mania and depression. While non-medical staff differed from psychiatrists in judging the comparative utility of some drug interventions and lifestyle issues, there was clear evidence of a relatively dominant 'medical model' to recommended treatments, while traditional healing practices and services were rated as distinctly unhelpful.

A comparative mental health literacy survey of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in Singapore

Objective: The objectives of this study are, first, to replicate and extend an Australian approach to assessing mental health literacy by studying a sample of Singapore mental health professionals, and to focus on differences between judgements made by the psychiatrists in comparison with the other mental health professionals. Second, to compare the psychiatrists' judgements with those of Australian psychiatrists. Method: The Australian questionnaire, assessing responses in relation to vignettes of major depression and to schizophrenia was extended by adding a third vignette of mania, and by the addition of several region-specific response options. Nearly 500 questionnaires were distributed to representative staff (psychiatrists, nurses and allied health) of a large psychiatric institution in Singapore, with a response rate of 81%. Psychiatrists' judgements were compared with all other hospital staff, and with Australian psychiatrists' judgements. Results: The two principal contrast groups (Singapore psychiatrists and other Singapore mental health professionals) differed slightly in terms of diagnostic accuracy. The psychiatrists differed in favouring a more professionally focused model of intervention, while both professional groups viewed traditional healers and their practices as distinctly unhelpful. Direct comparison of psychiatrist ratings generated in Singapore and in Australia revealed quite similar response profiles. Conclusions: In addition to generating data of some intrinsic importance, comparison with Australian survey data allows the potential impact of regional and cultural differences, as well as of varying psychiatric practices, to be identified. Responses identified more similarities than differences in the judgements of the psychiatrists from the two countries.

Improving access to evidence-based mental health care: general practitioners and allied health professionals collaborate

This study evaluated whether projects conducted through the Access to Allied Health Services component of the Australian Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care initiative are improving access to evidence-based, non-pharmacological therapies for people with depression and anxiety. Synthesising data from the first 29 projects funded through the initiative, the study found that the models utilised in the projects have evolved over time. The projects have achieved a high level uptake; at a conservative estimate, 710 GPs and 160 allied health professionals (AHPs) have provided care to 3,476 consumers. The majority of these consumers have depression (77%) and/or anxiety disorders (55%); many are low income earners (57%); and a number have not previously accessed mental health care (40%). The projects have delivered 8,678 sessions of high quality care to these consumers, most commonly providing CBT-based cognitive and behavioural interventions (55% and 41%, respectively). In general, GPs, AHPs and consumers are sanguine about the projects, and have reported positive consumer outcomes. However, as with any new initiative, there are some practical and professional issues that need to be addressed. The projects are improving access to evidence-based, non-pharmacological therapies. The continuation and expansion of the initiative should be a priority.

Multidisciplinary case conference reviews: Improving outcomes for nursing home residents, carers and health professionals

Aim of study: This study sought to determine whether multidisciplinary case conference reviews improved outcomes for nursing home residents, and the effects of this team approach to resident care on carers, including the hands-on carers employed by the nursing home, and health professionals. Method: 245 residents of three Canberra nursing homes were enrolled in this non-randomised controlled trial. The intervention consisted of sessions of three case conference reviews held between 10/4/96 and 4/12/96. These sessions were attended by the General Practitioners (GPs) of the residents discussed, the GP project officer from the ACT Division of General Practice, a clinical pharmacist, senior nursing staff, other health professionals eg physiotherapist, and occasionally the resident concerned or their representative. At each review, a case presentation by the resident's GP was followed by a multidisciplinary discussion of all aspects, medical and non-medical, of the resident's care. The review concluded with a management plan for the resident. In total 75 residents were reviewed. Main outcome measures: Medication use and cost, and mortality. Results: One month after the reviews were completed comparisons between those who were reviewed and those who were not showed non-significant reductions in medication orders, medication cost, and mortality in the reviewed group. Many of the 92 recommendations in the management plans that were carried out benefited the residents (n=37) and/or carers (n=24). The responses of the GPs and the Directors of Nursing to the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. Conclusion: Recommendations arising from multidisciplinary case conferences were carried out to the benefit of patients and carers. Given the support shown by key stakeholders, multidisciplinary conferences should be used more.