Can we ask them? Self-reported care experiences in long-term facilities for Severe Mental Illness and Korsakoff’s syndrome
E. Oudman, I. Gijsberts, K. Naburgh-VisserIntroduction
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