Interventionsphase: systemisch psychiatrischen arbeit mit patienten und angehörigen

SYMPA - Projekt
Ruprecht- Karls-Universität - Heidelberg
"Systemic Acute Psychiatry"
Instructions for Use
This handbook describes the way of working within the SYMPA-Project starting in October 2004. The content of this handbook has been “ripened” by experiences within the SYMPA-training, it has been put to test within the homework assigned and carefully reviewed by the project coordinators. The table of content specifies all clinical procedures. Each procedure is described with regard to „objective“, „external conditions“ and „proceeding”. At the end of this handbook you find a classification of these procedures according to - SYMPA-basic program: what should be applied to all patients - SYMPA-plus program: what should only be applied in special treatment situations We hope this handbook „Systemic Acute Psychiatry“ contributes to the success and Table of content
I. Systemic Settings of Conversation
1. Geneogram
2. Systemic one-on-one interviews and family talks
2.1. Systemic one-on-one interviews
2.2. Systemic family talks
3. Systemic group therapy
4. Further conversational offers on request
- cooperational talks
- ward rounds for relatives
- consultation hour for relatives etc.
II. Reflective Meeting Culture on the Ward
1. patient-centered team meetings (intervision)
2. patients as team supervisors
III. Negotiating Culture on Admission
1. Systemic planning of therapeutic goals: contracting, case
conceptualization, systems therapeutic treatment offer
2. Negotiating on medication
3. Negotiating on (alternatives to) compulsory measures/restrictions
of personal freedom
4. Negotiating on (alternatives to) abrupt discharge
5. Conversation on diagnosis
6. Read through/brief talk on discharge summaries
IV. Survey of SYMPA Basic and Plus Program
I. Systemic Settings of Conversation
1. Geneogram
The geneogram offers a quick survey on complex family structures. You get information on the historical development of the familial relationships from the patient’s point of view. Based on the dynamics perceived, it is possible to build hypotheses that can lead to a re-formulation of the past and to new solution ideas External Conditions
The geneogram should be developed as soon as possible after admission, taking the patient’s resilience and willingness into account.
If possible the geneogram should be created with all patients during their hospital stay. It should be constructed by all ward employees according to arrangements between the different professions. The geneogram is developed in one-on-one Proceeding
Three generations should be described using the following information: 1. Structure of the family: name, age (date of birth/ date of death) of all family members and their biological and judicial relations. 2. Demographic data: place of residence, profession, etc.
3. Critical incidences in the familial history: marriages, divorces, loss, suicide, 4. Further information on the current problem.
5. Optional: quality of familial relationships (close, reserved, conflict-ridden, A geneogram determined for the file follows the symbols agreed upon. It should only A copy of the geneogram can be used in therapeutic conversations for further therapeutic work. This copy can be marked in more detail. 2. Systemic One-on-One Interviews and Family Talks
Systemic one-on-one interviews and family talks are meant to encourage changes in constructions of reality as well as different communication patterns. They aim at an understanding of the current life-situation and serve as a base for the development of External Conditions
Systemic one-on-one interviews
During the hospital stay each patient should have at least one weekly therapeutic talk of 15-30 minutes with employees of different professions. Systemic Family Talks
During the hospital stay at least one family talk should take place between admission and discharge. Family talks take place together with those persons who are important within the patient’s environment and who want to contribute to a solution.
These "social families“ do not have do be identical with the "biological“ or „judicial Within the SYMPA-project we do not speak of family talks in the following cases: - Systemic talks only with the patient, even if they focus on family themes (“family - Psycho-educative talks which focus on information about the disorder and trainings that focus on relapse prophylaxis according to the "Expressed Proceeding
Questions on reality construction
ƒ Unraveling the problem: What is it all about? What is the problem according to the patient and others present? Gathering information on different descriptions of the problem, different points of view and differential reactions on the problem. ƒ Contracting: Asking for the expectations of those present. ƒ Who wants what (and who doesn’t) when (and when not)? ƒ When would the problem be solved? Who would be the first to realize this and how would it be realized? What can I/can we contribute to this? What would be a successful result of this talk (definition of goals)? Questions on possibility construction
- Miracle question (visions on a life without the problem) ƒ Combination of solution-focused and problem-oriented questions: - The advantage of keeping the problem (temporarily) - questions about conscious relapse Circular questions
The aim of circular questions is to describe and clarify (vicious) cycles, mutually caused processes and relational patterns.
Questions that point out differences
Classification questions, percent questions, questions on degree of agreement create new information in the system and encourage new perspectives and ways of thinking. The perception of differences is a basis for change.
Reframing aims at a reinterpretation and reformulation of the current reality construction and the according stories told and experienced. That way the stories are reset in a different context and solutions and changes are made possible. 3. Systemic Group Therapy
The systemic group therapy is a supplementary measure within the systemic overall context. It is supposed to deepen the results of geneogram creation, contracting, treatment planning, systemic one-on-one interviews and family talks. Induced changes in reality construction and habitual communication patterns are further reflected and practiced in direct contact with the fellow patients. Aim of systemic group therapy is a guided perception of one’s own strength and possibilities as well as the amelioration of competences and the patient’s scope of action. External Conditions
The group therapy takes place on a weekly base in an open setting and lasts about 60 minutes. Apart from bedridden, advanced mental patients or patients in a highly acute state which could not manage such a group setting, there are no diagnostical restrictions to participation. The team decides on participation guided by the physician in charge. The group is lead by senior physicians or ward physicians accompanied by one or two nurses and a social worker. Proceeding
The choice of methods is based on our humanistic, resource- and growth oriented world view. According to the key-note of a solution-focused systemic perspective we implement methods that make use of hypothesizing, circularity and all-partiality in order to contribute to the promotion of the patient’s development.
In order not to promote the orientation on diagnostic categories already existent we prefer working according to a trans-diagnostical concept. Group structure: brief „weather report“, working on the problem of a group member, work out and deepening of common patient-related topics, homework for deepening, conclusion and résumé, brief finish.
Way of working: hypothesizing, systemic questioning (questions on reality construction and possibility construction, circular questioning and questions that focus on differences), resource and solution orientation, reframing, reflecting teams 4. Further Conversational Offers on Request:
1) cooperational talks
2) ward rounds for relatives
3) consultation hour for relatives etc.

II. Reflective Meeting Culture on the Ward
1. Patient-centered Team Meeting (Intervision)
Within a solution and resource focused meeting culture the patient is believed capable of actively resolving and influencing his course of disease. Activated from outside he can recognize, transfer and use these skills and resources. Patients are perceived as clients who negotiate their wishes and mandates with the professionals. By using circular questioning it is possible to focus on psychological, social and material resources: How can the things perceived be related in a coherent and sensible manner? The team can discuss possible solutions or reframe behavior External Conditions
Besides the team meetings already running, the group intervision can be used to discuss several patients (e.g. particularly difficult cases) in more detail. Intervisions should take place on a regular basis once or twice a month. In-house intervision can be separated from supervision with the latter being led by an external supervisor. Proceeding
1) Choice of a moderator who is in charge of:
- collecting central questions with regard to the relevant case - making sure the group does not get side-tracked 2) Brief description of the problem and its context; previous approaches to
the problem
3) Objectives: „What do we want to clarify?“
4) Collecting hypotheses
5) Evaluation of hypotheses: What kind of “hits and blanks” can be identified
with regard to the objectives? Further processing: Which “hits” can be
translated into concrete ideas?
6) Ideas for solutions
7) Final evaluation: “What do we want to realize?”
2. Patients as Team Supervisors
By establishing patients as team supervisors we intend to achieve three goals. First, the patient plays an active, responsible and autonomous role. Second, the team practices solution and resource orientation and still brings up critical topics in an appreciating manner. In addition, transparency is established for the patient who gains insight in what is done to him and why.
External Conditions
Each patient is supposed to be present at one to two case conferences the least. It is agreed with the patient when he takes part in the conferences. The patient takes along a confidant (fellow patient, relative, carer, etc.) or is accompanied by his Proceeding
Announcement of the team meeting to the patient and establishing a time
structure – making an appointment with the patient: When is it going to be „his/her
1. The moderator welcomes the patient and states or asks about the focus of
2. The professionals speak about the patient present, focusing on:
- or descriptions of the current situation The team exchanges resource-oriented perspectives: - What causes astonishment/need for clarification? - Are there any hypotheses on what experienced problems could be good for? 3. Reflecting team of the patient and his confidant on the things stated by the
4. If there is a result it is written down and shown to the patient
III. Negotiating Culture on Admission
1. Systemic planning of therapeutic goals:
contracting, case conceptualization, systems
oriented treatment offer
We assume that patients are experts for the resolution of their problems. Thus we do consider them as important co-creators in the planning of their therapeutic goals.
Frequently, a similar thing can be said of relatives, other persons close to the patient and important external treatment institutions.
Their expectations with regard to the treatment should be explored and used as far as possible (contracting). A shared case conceptualization is developed on how the patient got into the psychiatric crisis and what could help him out. Based on contracting and case conceptualization treatment elements are chosen which seem to be helpful in terms of improving the systemic situation of the patient (system This procedure is based on an attitude of curiosity (about the social situation of the patient), an extensive neutrality (with regard to different life concepts) and a position of not-knowing (what is best for the patient). External Condition
With every patient –if possible with the relatives, too- a stepwise contracting is done at the beginning of treatment (during the creation of a geneogram, in systemic one- on-one interviews, in family talks). At the end of this initial phase a shared case conceptualization is developed and therapeutic goals are derived that are written This can be done by all ward members according to arrangements made between the different professions. It is important that contracting is done with the patient and Each patient is presented the different treatment options: what has to be taken obligatory, what can be dropped? With regard to the latter the patient can express Proceeding
ƒ Who…?: Who is contract partner in the treatment and who is not: The patient himself? The relative? The general practitioner? The court? ƒ …wants what?: What exactly is wanted from the assortment of stationary treatment offers?: Medication? Psychotherapy? A sick certificate? „Hotel ƒ …when?: How long is the stay supposed to last? Is time ripe for a change? Or is it too early or already too late for that? ƒ …how much?: How intensive/urgent is the patient’s need for treatment? ƒ …what for/against : What are official and unofficial results expected from the Shared case conceptualization
ƒ In which systemic constellation did the patient get into the current psychiatric ƒ What could all persons involved do (at least the patient, relatives and ward staff) in order to help the patient out of this crisis? Guidelines for agreements upon therapeutic goals
ƒ first person formulation; which goals are seen by the patient? ƒ goals that are introduced by the treatment personnel are negotiated with the ƒ a contract-hierarchy is established that is valid for the first 14 days, afterwards ƒ weekly revision with patient if necessary ƒ briefly stated in a written form (max. 1 page) by physicians and nurses ƒ signed by the patient; patient receives a copy Criteria of goal formulation:
ƒ positive
ƒ concrete und specified
ƒ observable
ƒ attainable by own means
ƒ fitting in the context
ƒ in the patient’s tongue
2. Negotiating on Medication
The patient is meant to become aware of his own influence on medication and consequently exert influence on medicational decisions in a more conscious way.
That for, it is helpful to point up the mostly unconscious social indications of medicational decisions (for whom’s sake or against whom does or doesn’t the patient External Conditions
Choice and dose of medication is negotiated with the patient. Relevant perspectives include pharmacological criteria (innocuousness, side effects, symptom reduction) as well as social-systemic criteria (effects of intake or non-intake on the patient’s relations on the ward, in the family, at work, with his friends etc.).
1. These effects are asked about in a circular manner: • Reactions of relatives („What would your wife do if you would discontinue • Reactions of the patient on these reactions („If your wife would threaten to get divorced – would you retake the Haldol?“) • Variations of the current relational patterns with regard to medication intake („Given we would find a medication with less neurological side effects which would leave you less affected optically – would you take it for your 2. The ward physician points out to the patient: • which decisions of the patient (intake, refusal, change of medication) will be followed by which inevitable reactions of the ward staff (ranging from „doesn’t matter“ to „dismissal due to non-cooperation“ and „compulsory • how much leeway the patient has (which variations of medication are possible) and where it ends (which kind of medication will not be accepted 3. Following the discussion of consequences for the patient’s relationships (1.) and the patient’s leeway (2.) a decision is made – if possible in agreement. 3. Negotiating on (alternatives to) compulsory
measures/restrictions of personal freedom
The objective of systemic negotiating is to keep compulsory measures and inevitable restrictions of personal freedom as little as possible but as extensive as necessary. External Conditions
In situations of self-endangering or other-endangering behavior the nurses and the physicians respectively discuss with patient how he or she can avoid or minimize impending restrictions of personal freedom. Proceeding
1. The treatment personnel makes clear to the patient which inevitable reactions (ranging from „doesn’t matter” to “no time off without company” and “fixation”) are to be expected following self- or other-endangering behavior. The treatment personnel further points out how these reactions can be influenced by the patient himself through his words and actions within the next 2. The treatment personnel asks circular questions: • on the measures perceived to be less threatening (“What would be a less • on attachment figures who could help the patient to get out of the “danger zone” without restrictions of personal freedom (“Are there any fellow patients or relatives who could calm you down effectively?”) • on treatment measures which could help the patient out of the “danger zone” without restrictions of freedom (“Let’s assume we would relocate you on ward X where fellow patient Y could not hassle you …would you be able to stop shouting there?”; “Let’s assume we would let you retreat to the rest room without fixation but in the presence of nurse Z – would you be able to Treatment staff and patient agree upon the proceeding in a consensual manner as 4. Negotiating on (alternatives to) abrupt discharge
The objective of this kind of negotiation is to open up alternatives to unamicable External Conditions
If abrupt discharges are in the air (either at the patient’s request, “against medical advice” or on behalf of the treatment staff due to breach of ward regulations), a ward member addresses the patient: “ I got the impression that you actually want to leave Proceeding
In case of an affirmative answer the treatment personnel discusses with the patient 1. what or who puts the patient off his stay or motivates him to leave the ward 2. which beneficial or adverse consequences (familial, professional, with regard to fellow patients or health, etc.) would follow the patients ward leave 3. what the patient himself considers to be a good way of leaving and –if 4. if or how the treatment personnel could facilitate the best possible leaving or the best possible continuance for the patient 5. if the patient wants to make a decision on staying or leaving in a conscious manner or if he prefers leaving this decision up to other people or the While discussing these options the treatment personnel act neutrally (except for forensic patients): Leaving the ward and continuance of the stay are equally honorable and arguable. In-patient treatment is neither fundamentally good nor bad.
The treatment personnel show great interest in the patient’s perspective and assist him in finding a conscious (or unconscious if wanted) decision that fits to his point of 5. Conversation on Diagnosis
The aim of conversations on diagnosis is to develop an understanding of the patient’s diagnosis that enables the patient to realize as many desired options of living as possible (that is to say the least reduction of social opportunities as possible). This can lead to a context-dependent communication of diagnoses – e.g.
“professionally accurate diagnosis” when communicating with the health insurance vs. a “diagnosis beneficial to love” when communicating with the spouse.
External Conditions
The decision on a psychiatric diagnosis is discussed with the patient (provided there is scope of decision as well as his way of dealing with the allocated psychiatric We assume that diagnoses (strictly speaking: the communication on diagnoses) do have context-dependent, frequently even contradictory effects. Diagnoses facilitate or complicate communication between professionals. They ensure or endanger the financing of treatments and care. They offer security and detract from work-related demands and job loss. They enhance or lower self-confidence and social Proceeding
The diagnostician discusses with the patient: 1. What is the diagnosis the patient himself considers to be appropriate? And how good or bad does this self-diagnosis do to him? 2. The diagnosis set by the diagnostician: (1) Which thoughts, hopes and fears are caused by this diagnosis? (2) The diagnostician briefly states why he supports this diagnosis (health insurance billing, choice of a best fitting medication, protection from environmental demand, etc.) and asks the patient which of these reasons (3) What will the reaction of important others (partner, children, parents, employer/colleagues, court, annuity insurance,…) be like? 3. To what extent can the patient agree on the diagnosis of the diagnostician?: Which positive side effects („new chances“) and which negative side effects (“restrictions”, “stigma”) are to be expected for the patient? Can the diagnostician (temporarily) revise his decision depending on the results? 4. How should the diagnosis be communicated?: (1) What is the diagnostician supposed (not) to tell others? (2) What does the patient (not) want to let others know? 6. Read through/brief talk on discharge summaries
The objective of letting the patient read through his discharge summary is to provide a maximum amount of influence on the patient-related notes that circulate within External Conditions
The patient is enabled to read the discharge summary and –if he/she wishes- to participate in its writing. Objective: to strengthen the feeling of influence on circulating communication about oneself (if wanted). Proceeding
1. A brief, time-effective letter-writing-procedure is developed within the clinics that enables the patient to get an insight in his summary a day before discharge or on the day of discharge the latest. 2. The patient is offered to let the physician know if there are any wishes for amendments. These are integrated in the text (in case of mutual consent) or included as special votes below the text (in case of disagreement). 3. If the clinic policies leave room for that, the patient decides whether he wants to take along the letter of discharge himself and if further copies are sent to Handbook "Systemic Acute Psychiatry"
4 out of 6 items have to be fulfilled. An item can be replaced by an item from the plus
1. Development of a geneogram, submission to the patient’s file
2. Systemic planning of therapeutic goals: contracting, case
conceptualization and treatment program are developed together with
the patient
3. One systemic family talk per stay
4. One systemic one-on-one conversation a week
5. Systemic negotiating on conflicts on the ward (at least once):
- medication intake
- compulsory measures
- abrupt requests for discharge
6. One systemic talk of discharge per stay
3 out of 6 items have to be fulfilled
1. More than one systemic one-on-one conversation a week
2. More than one systemic family talk per stay
3. Systemic group therapy
4. Patient is discussed (at least once) in:
- systemic intervision and/or
- systemic supervision
5. Patient and/or relative takes part (at least once) in:
- systemic intervision and/or
- systemic supervision
6. Preparations for discharge
(at least one of the following items)
- Conversation on diagnosis and/or
- let the patient read through the discharge summary and/or
- exchange with following treatment institutions



Een kwart eeuw wiegendood in Nederland De incidentie van wiegendood is in ons land vanaf oktoberde statistiek van doodsoorzaken van het CBS. De preva-1987 sterk afgenomen, parallel aan de bestrijding van delenties van risicofactoren bij wiegendoodkinderen (0–23gewoonte om zuigelingen op hun buik te laten slapen. maanden) en in de algemene bevolking bij zuigelingen vanSinds 1987 zijn mee


TURN OFF TO TUNE IN September 2011 The kids are back in school and the unpredictable schedules Replace Watching TV with these activities: of summer are behind you. This is a great time to turn it off  Get active! Go for a walk, ride bikes and tune in to your family with a Turn-Off-The-TV Challenge. or take up a new sport. Teaching your kids to be Americans watch

Copyright © 2010-2014 Online pdf catalog