Objective To develop understandings of the nature and influence of trust in the safe management of medication within mental health services. Setting Mental health services in the UK. Method Qualitative methods were applied through focus groups across three different categories of service user—older adult, adults living in the community and forensic services. An inductive thematic analysis was carried out, using the method of constant comparison derived from grounded theory. Main Outcome Measure Participants’ views on the key factors influencing trust and the role of trust in safe medication management. Results The salient factors impacting trust were: the therapeutic relationship; uncertainty and vulnerability; and social control. Users of mental health services may be particularly vulnerable to adverse events and these can damage trust. Conclusion Safe management of medication is facilitated by trust. However, this trust may be difficult to develop and maintain, exposing service users to adverse events and worsening adherence. Practice and policy should be oriented towards developing trust.
Adverse events Concordance Health behaviour Mental health Qualitative research United Kingdom
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We acknowledge the co-operation of service users from Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust in this research project.
Conflicts of interest
IM has undertaken consultancy for pharmaceutical companies that produce medication used within mental health services including Eli Lilly, BMS, Lundbeck, Servier and Astra Zenecca. PB and MC none.
Möllering G. Trust: reason, routine and reflexivity. Oxford: Elsevier. 2006. ISBN 0080448550.Google Scholar
Hall MA, Dugan E, Zheng B, Mishra AK. Trust in physicians and medical institutions: what is it, can it be measured and does it matter. Milbank Q. 2001;79:613–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calnan M, Rowe R, Entwistle V. Trust relations in health care: an agenda for future research. J Health Organ Manag. 2006;20:477–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes V, Neilson J, O’Flynn N et al. Clinical guidelines and evidence review for medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners. 2009. Available on http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG76FullGuideline.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2011.
Seale C, Chaplin R, Lelliott P, Quirk A. Sharing decisions in consultations involving anti-psychotic medication: a qualitative study of psychiatrists’ experiences. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:2861–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safran DG, Taira DA, Rogers WH, Kosinski M, Ware JE, Tarlov AR. Linking primary care performance to outcomes of care. J Fam Pract. 1998;47:213–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
EMERGE (Erice Medication Errors Research Group). Medication errors: problems and recommendations from a consensus meeting. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;67:592–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vassilev I, Pilgrim D. Risk, trust and mental health services. J Mental Health. 2007;16:347–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maidment ID, Paton C, Lelliott P. A review of medication errors in mental health care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15:409–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory—a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications; 2006. ISBN 9780761973539.Google Scholar
Wilder CM, Elbogen EB, Moser LL, Swanson JW, Swartz MS. Medication preferences and adherence among individuals with severe mental illness and psychiatric advance directives. Psychiatr Serv. 2010;61:380–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maidment ID, Haw C, Stubbs J, Fox C, Katona C, Franklin BD. Medication errors in older people with mental health problems: a review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008;23:564–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownlie J, Howson A. Leaps of faith and MMR: an empirical study of trust. Sociology. 2005;39:221–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadam UT, Croft P, McLeod J, Hutchinson M. A qualitative study of patients’ views on anxiety and depression. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51:375–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Reason J. Human error. Cambridge: University of Cambridge; 1990. ISBN—9780521314190.Google Scholar
Watt I, Birks Y, Entwistle V et al. Patient safety research programme PS/034—a review of strategies to promote patient involvement, a study to explore patient’s views and attitudes and a pilot study to evaluate the acceptability of selected patient involvement strategies. University of York, May 2009. Available on—http://www.haps.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/psrp/documents/PS034_-_Final_report_2009.pdf. Accessed 9 Mar 2011.