Mehrperspektivität und Peers auf psychiatrischen Akutstationen

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag werden die Erfahrungen mit Peer-Beratern als integraler Teil der multiprofessionellen Bezugstherapeutenteams auf den Akutstationen der psychiatrischen Universitätsklinik der Charité im St. Hedwig-Krankenhaus vermittelt werden. Durch umfassende Struktur-und Haltungsveränderungen wurde in den vergangenen vier Jahren mit der Einführung des Recovery-orientierten Konzeptes Weddinger Modell ein Perspektivwechsel in der gesamten psychiatrischen Klinik erreicht, der die Peer-Berater als „organische Erweiterung” der Teams nicht nur ermöglicht hat, sondern auch erforderlich machte.

Summary

This article presents the experiences with peers as integral component of multi-professional primary-care teams on acute wards of the Psychiatric University Clinic of the Charité at St. Hedwig Hospital. The implementation of the recovery oriented Weddinger Modell involved extensive transformations of structures and attitudes in the last 4 years.

It succeeded in a change of perspective in the entire clinic witch made the employment of peers as enhancement of the teams not only possible but also necessary.

Schlüsselwörter

Akutstationen - Weddinger-Modell - Mehrperspektivität

Keywords

Acute wards - Weddinger Modell - multiperspectivity

• Literatur

• 1 Mahler L. et al. Das Weddinger Modell Resilienzund Ressourcenorientierung im klinischen Kontext (1. Auflage.). Köln: Psychiatrie Verlag; 2014
• 2 Ilkiw-Lavalle O. Differences between patient and staff perceptions of aggression in mental health units. Psychiatric Services 2003; 54 (03) 389-393.
• 3 Laiho T. et al. Clinical decision making involved in secluding and restraining an adult psychiatric patient: an integrative literature review. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 2013; 20 (09) 830-839.
• 4 Ryan C. et al. Clinical decisions in psychiatry should not be based on risk assessment. Australasian Psychiatry 2010; 18 (05) 398-403.
• 5 Grant VJ, Briscoe J. Everyday ethics in an acute psychiatric unit. Journal of Medical Ethics 2002; 28 (03) 173-176.
• 6 Liberman RP. et al. Requirements for multidisciplinary teamwork in psychiatric rehabilitation. Psychiatric Services 2002; 52 (10) 1331-1342.
• 7 Messinger SD. Cooperation and contention in psychiatric work. Transcultural Psychiatry 2011; 48 (03) 284-298.
• 8 Stacey D. et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 10. 10
• 9 Deegan P, Drake R. Shared decision making and medication management in the recovery process. Psychiatric Services 2006; 57 (11) 1636-1639.
• 10 Adams J. et al. Shared decision-making preferences of people with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services 2007; 58 (09) 1219-1221.
• 11 De las CCuevas. et al. Psychiatric patients’ attitudes towards concordance and shared decision making. Patient education and counseling 2011; 85 (03) e245-e250.
• 12 Tanenbaum SJ. Consumer perspectives on information and other inputs to decision-making: Implications for evidence-based practice. Community Mental Health Journal 2008; 44 (05) 331-335.
• 13 Hamann J. et al. Patients’ and psychiatrists’ perceptions of clinical decisions during schizophrenia treatment. The Journal of nervous and mental disease 2008; 196 (04) 329-332.
• 14 Hamann J. et al. Psychiatrists’ use of shared decision making in the treatment of schizophrenia: Patient characteristics and decision topics. Psychiatric Services 2009; 60 (08) 1107-1112.
• 15 Seale C. et al. Sharing decisions in consultations involving anti-psychotic medication: a qualitative study of psychiatrists’ experiences. Social science & medicine 2006; 62 (11) 2861-2873.