Introduction
Open dialogue integrates fundamental psychodynamic principles and centers around holistic family therapy. The approach adopts an inclusive perspective and offers psychological treatment that transcends service boundaries by combining professional and social networks (Lennon et al., 2022). Open Dialogue is based on several fundamental organizational and philosophical principles. These principles include responsibility, social network perspective, immediate support, mobility and flexibility, and consistency in psychology (Von Peter et al., 2023).
Other principles that pertain to practice are the allowance of ambiguity or uncertainty, dialogism, and polyphony. These principles promote advanced preparation and planning, which make participants feel involved, challenged, and heard. The Australian health system is among the mental healthcare systems that have gradually implemented the dialogue approach. This system has developed community-based mental healthcare services that reach clients in need within 24 hours and in the comfort of their homes. This paper explores the open dialogue model, its principles, its application in a case study, and the approach’s limitations and strengths.
Open Dialogue in Mental Health
Open dialogue is a mental health care approach that developed from the need-adapted strategy that health professionals used in the 1980s in Western Lapland, Finland. The need-adapted therapy method impacted initial open dialogue versions, which eventually changed (Tribe et al., 2019). Open dialogue is an integrative method for organizing services and for dealing with individuals.
This approach strongly emphasizes investigating the interconnected history of psychotic episodes and mobilizing the client’s social and professional networks to provide adequate care. This approach prioritizes working with clients in the community rather than admitting them to the hospital, thereby reducing power imbalances between clinicians (Skourteli et al., 2023). Mentally ill individuals frequently feel helpless, which is exacerbated by the environment and structure of mental health services. Open dialogue seeks to remedy these imbalances by promoting openness, autonomy, and democracy.
Fundamental Principles in Open Dialogue
According to Waters et al. (2021), Olson and colleagues proposed fidelity criteria that listed seven essential principles of the open dialogue method. These principles can affect how mental health care professionals run services and how individuals interact with them. The social network perspective is one of the open dialogue elements emphasizing that every member of a client’s social life, including family and friends, can attend the network meetings (Pilling et al., 2022). A clinician, therapist, mental health nurse, peer worker, or rehabilitation agency also attends the meetings where they hold meaningful conversations about care. The meeting structure is less hierarchical and more collaborative, with a solid person-centered approach.
Additionally, clinicians discuss before the network, and everyone in attendance can make remarks on what the physicians share. This approach creates an environment that values transparency. Based on the principle of social networks, the client’s preferences determine the composition and venue of network meetings. Often, they take place at the individual’s home because home meetings reduce unnecessary hospital stays and promote family access to their resources.
The principles of continuity and responsibility demand that the first members involved in the initial meeting continue to participate throughout the therapeutic journey. The same team, in both inpatient and outpatient environments, handles therapy throughout treatment (Pilling et al., 2022). Often, a network has at least two care providers, who may be health professionals, depending on the circumstances of each case.
The network meeting can cooperate with more clinicians afterward if members support a change in the prescription or medicine, provided that no member has the requisite background. Immediate service provision is also an open dialogue principle that stresses that when a service user requires mental health services, health professionals must provide them within twenty-four hours (Pilling et al., 2022). When the therapist-moderator creates network meetings, the client must attend all sessions, even when they present with severe symptoms, to build a firm foundation for care.
Another principle of open dialogue is the mobility and flexibility in how the service user is treated. Everyone in the network meeting must assume their preconceptions of what can work or is unacceptable to enable suitable interventions and responses to develop in a fashion specific to the group’s needs during the sessions (Schriver et al., 2019). Similarly, promoting daily attendance of meetings for an extended period, for instance, may sometimes be necessary in patients with psychotic crises to create a sufficient sense of security surrounding the problem. The members select several therapeutic approaches and modalities and consider which best address the client’s issues. However, whenever possible, they should explore additional treatments, such as medication, in several meetings before making final choices; this preserves a reflective and consistent democratic approach that supports non-clinicians’ strong sense of authority in decision-making.
Dialogism in open dialogue maintains that a dynamic must begin within predetermined bounds and without predetermined goals. A dialogical approach allows for unrestricted exchange among network meeting members, which develops new territory layer by layer through each contribution. This principle holds that each person maintains their viewpoint, which may become salient in different situations (Ong et al., 2021). The open discussions in the network meetings aim to foster conversational culture and accepted voice multiplicity (Polyphony). The network’s group adopts a conversational mindset that respects and seeks to include all voices.
The experience of psychological distress or mental disorder comes with uncertainty for both the doctor and the client. Open dialogue tolerates this ambiguity from the beginning of the therapy. However, according to the approach, the same thing that contributes to uncertainty is the instinctive effort to eliminate it (Buus et al., 2021). Thus, meetings are consistent and are often used to prevent hasty therapeutic conclusions or judgments. Those involved in the open dialogue must connect to the patient’s distress to develop a tolerance. Through this, the patient and the family can act as catalysts for change, as they have a more developed language to communicate their experiences with challenging situations.
Summary of the Case Study
The given case study describes a 21-year-old Karin, who suffered and later recovered from a psychotic disorder after implementing an open dialogue. In the past six months, Karin had become intolerant of her parents and friends in school. She spent more time alone and attended classes or communicated with classmates only rarely. Karin rarely bathed, brushed her teeth, or even changed clothes at home. When her parents asked her why she had developed these habits, she would mumble and slam the door after them.
This situation persisted for quite some time and concerned Karin’s parents. They contacted a local mental health care center, which responded within twenty-four hours. A team comprising a peer worker, counselor, nurse, and psychiatrist reached Karin’s home and found the family in distress.
The parents were distressed that Karin would neither continue her studies nor improve. The brother also mentioned that he had a friend who suffered similar symptoms to Karin’s, and they were hospitalized. He suggested that the doctors should prescribe her antipsychotic medication and that she be hospitalized. As the meeting progressed, Karin folded her arms and responded only to the clinic team. He mumbled and looked down as he responded to her parents.
The mental health care center team set an 18-week network meeting through which Karin would receive the required help. After a few weeks, Karin started engaging in conversation, and one day, she reported that she did appreciate how her mother responded to the suicide of her uncle. The use of dialogical principles in the network meetings enabled Karin to recover from her mental distress and resume her studies at the University.
Application of Dialogue Principles
Australian mental health services have gradually shifted from deinstitutionalization to community-based health interventions. Mental health care in the community embraces the approach of open dialogue by providing support to individuals experiencing mental health issues. Mental health clinics have developed teams for younger adults and children, older individuals, and those experiencing acute episodes of early psychosis, like the case of Karin in the above case study.
In Australia, community interventions are not uniform and therefore involve social workers, psychiatrists, counselors, and nurses in mental health (Healthdirect, 2023). These professionals often collaborate to produce the best health outcomes for the patient. Clients who have a general practitioner available collaborate with their general practitioner. Similarly, an open dialogue can also include peer workers who have recovered from mental health issues.
Karin was able to recover because the approach to her mental healthcare services implemented the principles of open dialogue. Upon referral, a team of nurses, a counselor, a psychiatrist, and a peer worker arrived at Karin’s home within 24 hours (Buus et al., 2021). In open dialogues, health professionals must respond to a client’s problem within twenty-four hours. The health clinic team scheduled an 18-week meeting at Karin’s home and included all members who were present during their first contact. The professionals’ sources available, including the patient’s home, are used to reduce the cost of care in other venues; these principles are based on the social network perspective and on responsibility.
The case study reports that after several meetings, Karin’s symptoms reduced, and she can express her cause of mental distress. From the outset of the meetings, the health professionals do not have a preconceived notion of what might work for Karin. Instead, they attend the network meeting with an open mind and listen to what each team member has to say.
The patient’s brother also suggests that the doctors should institutionalize Karin and put her under antipsychotic prescriptions. Although open dialogue does not promote hospitalization, the team members listen to the brother and do not dispute his opinions. The meeting was conducted democratically, a component of mobility and flexibility in open dialogue.
Ong et al. (2021) explain that when implementing a dialogical meeting, every participant must acknowledge that all views are valuable and acceptable. The community mental health care clinic team does not have preconceptions of what the client should think or perceive. They must never claim to be more knowledgeable about the client’s utterances or opinions. From the study, the clinicians work based on the principle of dialogism because they do not confront the patient’s mother when they mention that talking about suicide is wrong, as it opens up unhealed wounds. They also do not contradict Karin’s brother but promote polyphony, where all voices are heard and valued.
For an open dialogue to yield results in Karin’s case, the health professionals must approach the meeting with curiosity, empathy, and minimal judgment (Fuller et al., 2021). For instance, the professionals can ask the client, “Is there anything you want to share about yourself today?” This question provides an open forum for the patient to discuss anything without the restrictions or boundaries of the physician.
The counselor could also use the client’s words to emphasize the points that they make (Fuller et al., 2021). For example, the counselor could say, “If I have understood you well, did Karin begin isolating herself after the death of her uncle?” This question enables the client to confirm her statements, clarify issues, or provide more information on their mental health condition.
The principle of open dialogue holds that family members and the team must tolerate the uncertainty inherent in the meeting. These participants can only tolerate the client’s condition by developing a connection with the patient’s experiences (Buus et al., 2021). The professionals can only understand Karin’s experience through active listening and acknowledging her pain.
Karin’s mental health deteriorates because of her parents’ response to her uncle’s death; this implies that there is a poor relationship between the two parties. However, the therapist can implement a relational focus by asking questions like, Karin, how do you feel about your mother and father? Or “Do you think your relationship with your parents has impacted the situation?
Relational focus helps the therapist and the team to understand the interactions Karin has with her family members and how they contribute to the deterioration of her mental health. At the end of the meeting, before the participants, the therapists would request permission to “reflect” publicly, in which they would rephrase what they had heard the members discuss (Schriver et al., 2019).
In Karin’s case, the therapist moderator can state, “I heard Karin’s father claim that he was frustrated when his daughter began missing school and isolating herself.” The therapist can also reflect by saying, “I am impressed by how all the family members are invested in Karin’s mental health and the resources you have invested in ensuring that her symptoms are alleviated.” During this reflection process, members must listen without responding immediately to the moderator (Schriver et al., 2022). However, they get a chance to say something after the reflection is over.
Strengths of Open Dialogue
Open dialogue is a holistic approach, meaning services are structured around a network of people who provide the patient with professional and personal assistance. The involvement of many people promotes better decision-making about psychotic interventions. Open dialogue is also cost-effective as it helps the team maximize psychological and financial resources, boosting productivity (Rutledge, 2021).
Network meetings acknowledge the wide range of patient lived experiences by adopting a polyphonic approach. The members aim to reach agreement while also respecting each person’s distinct life experiences (Sunthararajah et al., 2022). Person-centered care becomes a reality when the client actively engages in all decision-making, participates in all meetings, and acquires genuine attention to their feelings and perspectives.
Limitations of Open Dialogue
Open dialogue is not a suitable intervention for all cultural contexts. Some cultures believe in hierarchy and autonomy in decision-making. Open dialogue requires a collaborative effort in decision-making for the approach to be practical.
Similarly, the primary participant in an open dialogue is the client. The client must be willing to engage in a dialogical conversation for the team to reach an effective conversation (Skourteli et al., 2023). Lastly, the open approach is a growing model in mental health care; this implies that health professionals, including nurses, therapists, and clinicians, must be trained to use it to treat mental health disorders effectively. These trainings can be costly to the organizations and increase spending for the healthcare system.
Conclusion
Open dialogue is an integrative approach that uses social networks to promote mental healthcare services to clients. This approach uses locally available resources to teach the client amicable solutions to their problem. Open dialogue fosters communication among participants in network meetings and reduces hospitalizations.
The main principles of this approach are the social network perspective, flexibility, mobility, responsibility, continuity, immediate help, tolerance of uncertainty, and dialogism. These principles emphasize that patients shall receive services immediately after referral and involve members from the mental healthcare clinic, peer workers, clients, and family members. The discussions shall be open and encourage different perspectives from the members. Karin’s case study is a clear illustration of how health professionals can implement transparency, open-ended questions, dialogue, and reflective practices in alleviating the symptoms of a mentally ill patient. Even though open dialogue promotes inclusiveness and reduces healthcare costs, the program’s success depends on proper professional training and the client’s willingness to participate in network meetings.
References
Buus, N., Ong, B., Einboden, R., Lennon, E., Mikes‐Liu, K., Mayers, S., & McCloughen, A. (2021). Implementing open dialogue approaches: A scoping review. Family Process, 60(4), 1117-1133.
Fuller, M., Kamans, E., Van Vuuren, M., Wolfensberger, M., & De Jong, M. D. (2021). Conceptualizing empathy competence: A professional communication perspective. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 35(3), 333-368.
Healthdirect. (2023). Australian mental health services. Trusted Health Advice | healthdirect.
Lennon, E., Hopkins, L., Einboden, R., McCloughen, A., Dawson, L., & Buus, N. (2022). Organizational change in complex systems: Organizational and leadership factors in the introduction of open dialogue to mental health care services. Community Mental Health Journal, 59(1), 95-104.
Ong, B., Barnes, S., & Buus, N. (2021). Developing multiple perspectives by eliding agreement: A conversation analysis of open dialogue reflections. Discourse Studies, 24(1), 47-64.
Pilling, S., Clarke, K., Parker, G., James, K., Landau, S., Weaver, T., Razzaque, R., & Craig, T. (2022). Open dialogue compared to treatment as usual for adults experiencing a mental health crisis: Protocol for the ODDESSI multi-site cluster randomized controlled trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 113, 106664.
Rutledge, E. (2021). Open dialogue: A rights-based approach to treatment in mental health care. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 1-2.
Schriver, K. N., Buus, N., & Rossen, C. B. (2019). Reflective practices in open dialogue meetings: Reporting and inferential ‘My side tellings’. Journal of Pragmatics, 146, 19-31.
Schriver, K. N., Ong, B., Rossen, C. B., & Buus, N. (2022). Empathic’ my side tellings’: Three therapist strategies that ‘Argue understanding’ in open dialogue reflections. Journal of Pragmatics, 196, 44-53.
Skourteli, M. C., Issari, P., Dimou, L., Antonopoulou, A. O., Bairami, G., Stefanidou, A., Kouroglou, V., &Stylianidis, S. (2023). The introduction and implementation of open dialogue in a day center in Athens, Greece: Experiences and reflections of mental health professionals. Frontiers in Psychology, 14.
Sunthararajah, S., Clarke, K., Razzaque, R., Chmielowska, M., Brandrett, B., & Pilling, S. (2022). Exploring patients’ experience of peer-supported open dialogue and standard care following a mental health crisis: Qualitative 3-month follow-up study. BJPsych Open, 8(4).
Tribe, R. H., Freeman, A. M., Livingstone, S., Stott, J. C., & Pilling, S. (2019). Open dialogue in the UK: Qualitative study. BJPsych Open, 5(04).
Von Peter, S., Eissing, K., & Saliger, K. (2023). Open dialogue as a cultural practice – critical perspectives on power obstacles when teaching and enabling this approach in current psychiatry. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
Waters, E., Ong, B., Mikes‐Liu, K., McCloughen, A., Rosen, A., Mayers, S., Sidis, A., Dawson, L., & Buus, N. (2021). Open dialogue, need‐adapted mental health care, and implementation fidelity: A discussion paper. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 30(3), 811-816.