Triadic shared decision making in emergency psychiatry: an explorative study

Abstract Background This study aims to understand the complex triadic shared decision-making process in psychiatric emergency services, focusing on the choice between inpatient and outpatient care post-triage. It also identify scenarios where patient or significant others’ preferences override clinical judgment. Methods Conducted in the greater Rotterdam area, Netherlands, this explorative study surveyed patient and significant others’ preferences for voluntary or involuntary admission versus outpatient treatment, alongside professionals' clinical indications. Descriptive statistics were used to profile participants, and preference data were used to categorize groups, revealing patterns of agreement. Results Among 5680 assessments involving significant others, four groups emerged: agreement among the triad on in- or outpatient care (48.2%), patient disagrees (38.5%), significant others disagree (11.0%), and professionals disagree (2.3%). Professionals' recommendations were followed more frequently (57.0%) than patient (9.4%) or significant others’ preferences (11.0%). Conclusions We observed that consensus could often be reached among the members of the triad on inpatient or outpatient care following triage. Disagreements typically occurred when patients preferred outpatient care while others favoured inpatient care, or when significant others advocated for inpatient care while others preferred outpatient care. While professionals' recommendations held the most influence, they could be overridden in cases where valid criteria mandated involuntary care.