Considering the recently growing number of potentially traumatic events in Europe, the European Psychiatric Association undertook a study to investigate clinicians’ treatment choices for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The case-based analysis included 611 participants, who correctly classified the vignette as a case of PTSD, from Central/ Eastern Europe (CEE) (n = 279), Southern Europe (SE) (n = 92), Northern Europe (NE) (n = 92), and Western Europe (WE) (N = 148).

About 82% woulduse antidepressants (sertraline being the most preferred one). Benzodiazepines and antipsychotics were significantly more frequently recommended by participants from CEE (33 and 4%, respectively), compared to participants from NE (11 and 0%) and SE (9% and 3%). About 52% of clinicians recommended trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy and 35% psychoeducation, irrespective of their origin. In the latent class analysis, we identified four distinct “profiles” of clinicians. In Class 1 (N = 367), psychiatrists would less often recommend any antidepressants. In Class 2 (N = 51), clinicians would recommend trazodone and prolonged exposure therapy. In Class 3 (N = 65), they propose mirtazapine and eye movement desensitization reprocessing therapy. In Class 4 (N = 128), clinicians propose different types of medications and cognitive processing therapy. About 50.1% of participants in each region stated they do not adhere to recognized treatment guidelines.

Clinicians’ decisions for PTSD are broadly similar among European psychiatrists, but regional differences suggest the need for more dialogue and education to harmonize practice across Europe and promote the use of guidelines.

There are no clear guidelines for the optimal organisation of psychiatry placements for medical undergraduates. Moreover, the UK needs to enrol more psychiatry trainees. This service evaluation aimed to show that an efficient psychiatry placement can improve attitudes of students towards psychiatry and increase their likelihood to choose psychiatry.

We evaluated the efficacy of a new strategy for the psychiatry placement of 24 fourth-year medical students from the University of East Anglia during the academic year 2021/2022. The strategy consisted of having a 4-week placement in one of 3 wards at the Norfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust Woodlands Unit (PICU, acute male and female wards) with brief (one- to two-day) rotations across the wards, as well as the community team and individual areas of interest. This afforded students exposure to different settings, pathologies and levels of severity, with enough time in one service to allow integration into the team, participation in clinical and therapeutic activities and most important, observation of patient longitudinal improvement. Multidisciplinary teams were included by presenting the training as a win-win, and we relied on a good teaching culture at our Trust. We also offered a programmed induction day, a mid-placement meeting and an end-of-placement debrief. We evaluated the efficacy of the strategy using the Attitude Towards Psychiatry Questionnaire before and after the placement, as well as measuring overall satisfaction.

The overall satisfaction score on a 5 point Likert scale was very good (M = 4.58; SD = 0.58). Mean ATP total score significantly improved from 116.50 (SD 9.49) to 133.00 (SD 8.68) over a maximum attainable score of 150 (F(1;23) = 69.70, p < .001, ηp2= .75), with 23 out of the 30 items having significantly improved individually as well. The reliability of the scale was high with a Cronbach's alpha of .81 before and .84 after the psychiatry placement. The question “I would like to be a psychiatrist” improved significantly from 2.54 to 3.25 on the 5 point Likert scale (F(1, 23) = 16.33, p < .001, ηp2= .42) with an increase in students answering “agree” or “strongly agree” from 16.7% to 45.8%. This improvement was significantly positively correlated with the overall satisfaction score (R = .528, p < .01).

Psychiatry placement for medical undergraduates is a valuable opportunity to improve their attitudes towards psychiatry and their likelihood of choosing psychiatry as a specialty. We present our strategy as a model toward these goals.

While shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe.

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style – Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians’ expertise, training, and practice.

SDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style.

The preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe.

Social isolation and living alone have been associated with increased suicidality in older adults. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, older adults were advised to keep isolated and maintain social distancing. Lockdown periods in England may have led to increased isolation and loneliness in older people, possibly resulting in an increased rates of DSH and suicide. This study aimed to explore whether numbers of older adults referred to liaison services with deliberate self harm changed during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Reason for referral and total number of referrals to liaison services for older adults data were collected across 6 mental health trusts who had access to robust data sets. Data were collected prospectively for three months from the start of the UK national lockdown and for the corresponding 3 month period in 2019, via trust reporting systems. This study was registered as service evaluation within each of the participating mental health trusts.

Overall numbers of referrals to older adult liaison services went down, but the proportion of referrals for older adults with DSH increased. Across the six mental health trusts there there were a total of 2167 referrals over the first three month lockdown period in 2020, and 170 (7.84%) of these referrals were for deliberate self harm. During a corresponding time period in 2019, there were a total of 3416 referrals and 155 (4.54%) of these referrals were for deliberate self harm

Although numbers of referrals for older adults with delberate self harm appeared to stay the same, the severity of these presentations is not clear. Outcomes of referrals and severity of self harm could be explored by examining individual case records. As there have been subsequent lockdowns the data collection period should also be extended to include these. Triangulation with national and local datasets on completed suicide is planned.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused an unprecedented worldwide crisis affecting several sectors, including health, social care, economy and society at large. The World Health Organisation has emphasized that mental health care should be considered as one of the core sectors within the overall COVID-19 health response. By March 2020, recommendations for the organization of mental health services across Europe have been developed by several national and international mental health professional associations.

The European Psychiatric Association (EPA) surveyed a large European sample of psychiatrists, namely the “EPA Ambassadors”, on their clinical experience of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the treatment of psychiatric patients during the month of April 2020 in order to: a) identify and report the views and experiences of European psychiatrists; and b) represent and share these results with mental health policy makers at European level. Based on the recommendations issued by national psychiatric associations and on the results of our survey, we identified important organisational aspects of mental health care during the peak of the first wave of the COVID-19.

While most of the recommendations followed the same principles, significant differences between countries emerged in service delivery, mainly relating to referrals to outpatients and for inpatient admission, assessments and treatment for people with mental disorders. Compared to previous months, the mean number of patients treated by psychiatrists in outpatient settings halved in April 2020. In the same period, the number of mentally ill patients tested for, or developing, COVID-19 was low. In most of countries, traditional face-to-face visits were replaced by online remote consultations.

Based on our findings we recommend: 1) to implement professional guidelines into practice and harmonize psychiatric clinical practice across Europe; 2) to monitor the treatment outcomes of patients with COVID-19 and pre-existing mental disorders; 3) to keep psychiatric services active by using all available options (for example telepsychiatry); 4) to increase communication and cooperation between different health care providers.

The Bulgarian Ministry of Health invited the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) to evaluate Bulgarian mental health care service provision in 2018. Bulgarian mental health services face very significant challenges including a legacy of historic underfunding, internal conflicts, poor planning, and the emigration of very high numbers of younger skilled staff that had followed accession to the European Union. There were significant disputes between stakeholders regarding the way forward and had been at least two unsuccessful previous external agency interventions that had attempted to find solutions.

This EPA position paper describes in detail the EPA mission to Bulgaria including methodology, findings, recommendations, and finally the positive actions and changes that are now underway as a result of the EPA report and intervention aimed at contributing towards improving Bulgarian mental health services.

After meetings with multiple stakeholders in the Bulgarian mental health system and analysis of data on service delivery, workforce, funding and configuration the EPA Panel agreed a list of twenty recommendations for change.

The EPA mission, with the collaboration of multiple stakeholders in Bulgaria, was successful in stimulating high level government action to improve mental health services. Despite longstanding differences, it was possible to involve the stakeholders in constructive dialogue. The importance of “speaking with one voice” was a key lesson learned.

To determine female authorship of original articles and editorials between January 1997 and December 2008 in the British Journal of Psychiatry and the Psychiatric Bulletin. Editorials from Advances in Psychiatric Treatment and the geographical region of the female first author of original articles were also included in the study.

The gender was determined for 99.2% of the 2324 first authors of original articles and 100% of the 614 editorials. The percentage of original articles by female first authors fluctuated over the study period, ranging from 22.5 to 42.1% (mean 33.6) in the British Journal of Psychiatry, and from 25.5 to 46.8% (mean 37.6) in the Psychiatric Bulletin. There was a gross underrepresentation of females as first authors of editorials in all three journals. The percentage of female first authors of original articles from low- and middle-income countries ranged from 0.3 to 3.4% in both the British Journal of Psychiatry and the Psychiatric Bulletin.

There is an increasing trend in female first authorship of original articles. However, females remain underrepresented, especially in editorials, in the British psychiatric journals examined. The representation of female first authors from low- and middle-income countries is disproportionately low. Strategies to address these inequalities should be implemented.