Recent years show an exponential increased interest (“renaissance”) in the use of psychedelics for the treatment of mental disorders and broader. Some of these treatments, such as psilocybin for depression, are in the process of formal regulation by regulatory bodies in the US (FDA) and Europe (EMA), and as such on the brink of real-world implementation. In the slipstream of these developments increasing commercial initiatives are taking shape. The European Psychiatric Association (EPA) acknowledges both the therapeutic potential of psychedelic substances and the challenges for both research and clinical implementation. Steps need to be taken toward a well-balanced policy based upon sound scientific evidence and research, aiming at safe, ethical responsible integration of psychedelic therapy available for all patients who can potentially benefit.

In this EPA policy paper, we highlight the potential benefits, and also the challenges of psychedelic treatments, which can be relevant for the future real-world implementation of these treatments.

In addition to an overview of the current evidence and hypotheses of working mechanisms of psychedelic treatment, this policy paper specifically highlights the importance of the psychosocial components of the treatment as well as the ethical and professional aspects playing a role in real-world implementation.

Four recommendations are formulated for further research and clinical implementation.

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.

Establishing a valid communication is not only a basic clinical need to be met but also a relevant ethical commitment.

On the basis of the relevant literature, ethical issues arising from specific, important situations in clinical practice were identified.

The main ethical problems regarding communication about the disorder, both in general and in relation to prodromal stages, were described and discussed together with those regarding communication about voluntary and involuntary treatments, “dual roles” enacted in clinical practice, genetic counseling, and end-of-life conditions; on the basis of what emerged, ethically driven indications and suggestions were provided.

Several situations put the psychiatrist in front of relevant dilemmas and doubts which are no easy to face with; an ethically driven approach based upon the principle of the best interest of patients may support clinicians in their decisions.

Climate change is one of the greatest threats to health that societies face and can adversely affect mental health. Given the current lack of a European consensus paper on the interplay between climate change and mental health, we signal a need for a pan-European position paper about this topic, written by stakeholders working in mental health care.

On behalf of the European Psychiatric Association (EPA), we give recommendations to make mental health care, research, and education more sustainable based on a narrative review of the literature.

Examples of sustainable mental healthcare comprise preventive strategies, interdisciplinary collaborations, evidence-based patient care, addressing social determinants of mental health, maintaining health services during extreme weather events, optimising use of resources, and sustainable facility management. In mental health research, sustainable strategies include investigating the impact of climate change on mental health, promoting research on climate change interventions, strengthening the evidence base for mental health-care recommendations, evaluating the allocation of research funding, and establishing evidence-based definitions and clinical approaches for emerging issues such as ‘eco-distress’. Regarding mental health education, planetary health, which refers to human health and how it is intertwined with ecosystems, may be integrated into educational courses.

The EPA is committed to combat climate change as the latter poses a threat to the future of mental health care. The current EPA position paper on climate change and mental health may be of interest to a diverse readership of stakeholders, including clinicians, researchers, educators, patients, and policymakers.

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.

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.