Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T08:34:19.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Working with catatonia: a qualitative exploration of inpatient team emotional responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2021

Emma Salter*
Affiliation:
Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Linda Pow
Affiliation:
Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Emma Stacey
Affiliation:
Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Victoria Stephens
Affiliation:
Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Paul Beckley
Affiliation:
Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Jenna Oliphant
Affiliation:
Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
Lottie Heimes
Affiliation:
Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
Courtney Foster
Affiliation:
Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
*
*corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Child and adolescent mental health (CAMHS) wards treat patients with variable presentations. During diagnosis and treatment, psychiatric professionals use structured criteria, but also honed awareness of countertransference. Unacknowledged emotional responses can produce powerful dynamics and impact patient care.

Limited information exists on possible emotional responses and team dynamics when working with catatonia.

This project aimed to establish common themes relating to staff felt-experience of working with a specific case of catatonia on a Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMHS) ward. A secondary aim was to establish potential areas for future training and service improvement.

Method

Trust Research and Development department approved this work. Inpatient professionals working with the specified patient during admission were eligible. Participants were invited via email and face-face discussion with one of the authors. Participants, patient and mother provided written consent.

A questionnaire was created and disseminated via email to eligible staff (n = 33). 27 questions asked individuals to rate responses on Likert scales, plus space for further comments. Questions involved emotional responses to different catatonic states, feelings towards self, patient, colleagues and plans. Descriptive analysis was completed on this anonymised data.

Qualitative data were gathered via 1-hour recorded focus group, led by a systemic psychotherapist and psychologist. The session was transcribed anonymously. Two clinicians, using Thematic Analysis, reviewed the transcript independently.

Result

16 (48.5%) questionnaires were completed. Participants felt negatively about themselves and colleagues more frequently than about the patient. Participants felt positively about themselves less frequently than about colleagues and the patient. Participants identified with more feelings during immobile patient states than lucid states. During immobile states, participants identified with abusive, guilt, hopeless and neglectful responses; during lucid states, with helpful, caring, happy responses

Eight (50%) participants felt they sometimes did not understand their feelings towards colleagues/plans. Nine (57%) participants felt they sometimes did not understand their feelings towards themselves. Ten (66%) participants felt they sometimes did not understand their feelings towards the patient.

Ten (62.5%) participants felt confused by their emotions at least some of the time. Two (12.5%) frequently felt confused by their emotions.

Four participants attended the focus group. Themes included confusion, internal and team conflict.

Conclusion

Working with catatonia involved confusion and team splitting. Staff conflict between plans and morals resulted in painful emotions. Prompt psycho-education within teams working with uncommon presentations was identified as a focus for improvement. The authors plan to explore possible avenues for future teaching, learning and team support.

Type
Service Evaluation
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.