EPP491 - Can we ask them? Self-reported care experiences in long-term facilities for Severe Mental Illness and Korsakoff’s syndrome
EPP491
Can we ask them? Self-reported care experiences in long-term facilities for Severe Mental Illness and Korsakoff’s syndrome
E. Oudman 1 2 3,*, I. Gijsberts 4, K. Naburgh-Visser 5
1Parnassia, The Hague, 2Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 3Korsakoff Center of Expertise Slingedael, 4Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, 5Het Parkhuis, Salios, Dordrecht, Netherlands
Introduction: Patients with Severe Mental Illness (SMI) and Korsakoff’s syndrome (KS) in long-term care facilities face severe cognitive, psychiatric, and somatic challenges. Traditionally, quality of care in these groups is assessed through proxies, as self-report is often considered unreliable. This risks excluding patient perspectives from evaluation and improvement of care.
Objectives: The present study sought to evaluate whether patients with SMI and KS are able to reliably self-report their satisfaction with long-term care. A secondary aim was to compare patterns of satisfaction across these groups in order to identify both differences and common ground in their perspectives on care.
Methods: A cross-sectional design was employed. Data were collected from 86 geriatric SMI patients and 167 KS patients across six specialized long-term care facilities in the Netherlands. All participants completed a validated 14-item questionnaire assessing satisfaction with care across three domains: Autonomy (e.g., privacy, freedom, personal choice), Influence on Care (e.g., being listened to, participation in decisions), and Activity Level (e.g., engagement in meaningful daily activities). Items were rated on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. Independent sample t-tests were performed to compare mean domain scores between groups, with p < .05 considered statistically significant.
Results: Both SMI and KS patients were able to complete the questionnaire and provide consistent self-ratings, thereby challenging the assumption that self-report is not feasible in these populations. Overall satisfaction levels were moderate to high in both groups. Significant differences emerged between groups: SMI patients reported higher satisfaction with Influence on Care, suggesting a stronger sense of involvement in treatment planning and shared decision-making. In contrast, KS patients reported higher satisfaction with Activity Level, reflecting their engagement in structured routines and daily programs. Despite these differences, both groups emphasized the importance of Autonomy as a central component of care quality. This overlap highlights autonomy as a universal theme across EPA populations, even in the presence of severe cognitive and psychiatric impairments.
Conclusions: Even highly vulnerable EPA populations can provide valid self-reports. While group differences reflect distinct care needs, the shared emphasis on autonomy underscores the importance of integrating patient-reported outcomes into routine evaluation and quality improvement in long-term psychiatric care.
Disclosure of Interest: None Declared