The decision making process of ECT administration
Research type
Research Study
Full title
What is the process by which a decision to administer Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) or not is made? A grounded theory informed study of the perspectives of those involved.
IRAS ID
183213
Contact name
Anna C Duxbury
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Lancaster University
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 8 months, 1 days
Research summary
Previous research has suggested that 80% of people who have been administered ECT whilst detained in hospital did not consent to the treatment. In addition, research has found that service users felt they had not been given enough information about ECT before consenting to the procedure and that many service users felt it was a “last resort”. The idea of treatment being a last resort will potentially impact on a patient’s ability to consent as they will feel unable to refuse treatment that is seen as their last chance and furthermore will deem there to be no other treatment options.
There has been little research into ECT that involves staff. Among those that have, one found that there were significant differences in attitudes towards ECT between those in different job roles (Lutchman, Stevens, Bashir & Orrell, 2001). The study concluded that there is a need for awareness of differences of opinion towards the treatment in multidisciplinary teams and that the teams should be aware that there may be strong differences of opinion among members. These differences were said to be likely to affect the decision making process about ECT. As of yet, no research has investigated staff members views on the process of ECT.
It is clear that the decision making process that is taking place on the ground is not just a mechanistic one but one that is complex and not clear, therefore it is important for developing clinical care to understand how this is taking place. Grounded Theory is a helpful approach because it will allow the generation of a model giving detailed information regarding examples of how the decisions process is seen to be happening from the perspectives of different stakeholders
REC name
North West - Greater Manchester South Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
15/NW/0756
Date of REC Opinion
5 Nov 2015
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion