scholarly journals Interventions for involving older patients with multimorbidity in decision-making during primary care consultations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne E Butterworth ◽  
Rebecca Hays ◽  
Suzanne H Richards ◽  
Peter Bower ◽  
John Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Older Patients

Older Patients’ Perspectives on Quality of Serious Illness Care in Primary Care

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (10) ◽  
pp. 1330-1336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nebras. Abu Al Hamayel ◽  
Sarina R. Isenberg ◽  
Susan M. Hannum ◽  
Joshua Sixon ◽  
Katherine Clegg. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Access To Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Coordination Of Care ◽  
Serious Illness

Background: Despite increased focus on measuring and improving quality of serious illness care, there has been little emphasis on the primary care context or incorporation of the patient perspective. Objective: To explore older patients’ perspectives on the quality of serious illness care in primary care. Design: Qualitative interview study. Participants: Twenty patients aged 60 or older who were at risk for or living with serious illness and who had participated in the clinic’s quality improvement initiative. Methods: We used a semistructured, open-ended guide focusing on how older patients perceived quality of serious illness care, particularly in primary care. We transcribed interviews verbatim and inductively identified codes. We identified emergent themes using a thematic and constant comparative method. Results: We identified 5 key themes: (1) the importance of patient-centered communication, (2) coordination of care, (3) the shared decision-making process, (4) clinician competence, and (5) access to care. Communication was an overarching theme that facilitated coordination of care between patients and their clinicians, empowered patients for shared decision-making, related to clinicians’ perceived competence, and enabled access to primary and specialty care. Although access to care is not traditionally considered an aspect of quality, patients considered this integral to the quality of care they received. Patients perceived serious illness care as a key aspect of quality in primary care. Conclusions: Efforts to improve quality measurement and implementation of quality improvement initiatives in serious illness care should consider these aspects of care that patients deem important, particularly communication as an overarching priority.

scholarly journals Interventions for involving older patients with multi-morbidity in decision-making during primary care consultations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne E Butterworth ◽  
Rebecca Hays ◽  
Sinead TJ McDonagh ◽  
Suzanne H Richards ◽  
Peter Bower ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Older Patients

scholarly journals Primary Care Physicians’ Support of Shared Decision Making for Different Cancer Screening Decisions

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Elston Lafata ◽  
Richard F. Brown ◽  
Michael P. Pignone ◽  
Scott Ratliff ◽  
L. Aubree Shay
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Recommendation Grade

Background. Despite its widespread advocacy, shared decision making (SDM) is not routinely used for cancer screening. To better understand the implementation barriers, we describe primary care physicians’ (PCPs’) support for SDM across diverse cancer screening contexts. Methods. Surveys were mailed to a random sample of USA-based PCPs. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, we tested for associations of PCPs’ support of SDM with the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) assigned recommendation grade, assessed whether the decision pertained to not screening older patients, and the PCPs’ autonomous v. controlled motivation-orientation for using SDM. Results. PCPs (n = 278) were, on average, aged 52 years, 38% female, and 69% white. Of these, 79% endorsed discussing screening benefits as very important to SDM; 64% for discussing risks; and 31% for agreeing with patient’s opinion. PCPs were most likely to rate SDM as very important for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 50–75 years (69%), and least likely for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged >85 years (34%). Regression results indicated the importance of PCPs’ having autonomous or self-determined reasons for engaging in SDM (e.g., believing in the benefits of SDM) (OR = 2.29, 95% CI, 1.87 to 2.79). PCPs’ support for SDM varied by USPSTF recommendation grade (overall contrast, X2 = 14.7; P = 0.0054), with support greatest for A-Grade recommendations. Support for SDM was lower in contexts where decisions pertained to not screening older patients (OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.56). Limitations. It is unknown whether PCPs’ perceptions of the importance of SDM behaviors differs with specific screening decisions or the potential limited ability to generalize findings. Conclusions. Our results highlight the need to document SDM benefits and consider the specific contextual challenges, such as the level of uncertainty or whether evidence supports recommending/not recommending screening, when implementing SDM across an array of cancer screening contexts.

scholarly journals A referral aid for smoking cessation interventions in primary care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniëlle N. Zijlstra ◽  
Jean W.M. Muris ◽  
Catherine Bolman ◽  
J. Mathis Elling ◽  
Vera E.R.A. Knapen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Informed Decision Making

Abstract Background: To expedite the use of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions (EBSCIs) in primary care and to thereby increase the number of successful quit attempts, a referral aid was developed. This aid aims to optimize the referral to and use of EBSCIs in primary care and to increase adherence to Dutch guidelines for smoking cessation. Methods: Practice nurses (PNs) will be randomly allocated to an experimental condition or control condition, and will then recruit smoking patients who show a willingness to quit smoking within six months. PNs allocated to the experimental condition will provide smoking cessation guidance in accordance with the referral aid. Patients from both conditions will receive questionnaires at baseline and after six months. Cessation effectiveness will be tested via multilevel logistic regression analyses. Multiple imputations as well as intention to treat analysis will be performed. Intervention appreciation and level of informed decision-making will be compared using analysis of (co)variance. Predictors for appreciation and informed decision-making will be assessed using multiple linear regression analysis and/or structural equation modeling. Finally, a cost-effectiveness study will be conducted. Discussion: This paper describes the study design for the development and evaluation of an information and decision tool to support PNs in their guidance of smoking patients and their referral to EBSCIs. The study aims to provide insight into the (cost) effectiveness of an intervention aimed at expediting the use of EBSCIs in primary care.

scholarly journals Decision support tools to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (689) ◽  
pp. e809-e818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Chima ◽  
Jeanette C Reece ◽  
Kristi Milley ◽  
Shakira Milton ◽  
Jennifer G McIntosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Decision Support Tools ◽  
Diagnostic Decision ◽  
Support Tools ◽  
Diagnostic Decision Making

BackgroundThe diagnosis of cancer in primary care is complex and challenging. Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) have been proposed as an approach to improve GP decision making, but no systematic review has examined their role in cancer diagnosis.AimTo investigate whether eCDSTs improve diagnostic decision making for cancer in primary care and to determine which elements influence successful implementation.Design and settingA systematic review of relevant studies conducted worldwide and published in English between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2018.MethodPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and a consultation of reference lists and citation tracking was carried out. Exclusion criteria included the absence of eCDSTs used in asymptomatic populations, and studies that did not involve support delivered to the GP. The most relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were applied according to study design of the included paper.ResultsOf the nine studies included, three showed improvements in decision making for cancer diagnosis, three demonstrated positive effects on secondary clinical or health service outcomes such as prescribing, quality of referrals, or cost-effectiveness, and one study found a reduction in time to cancer diagnosis. Barriers to implementation included trust, the compatibility of eCDST recommendations with the GP’s role as a gatekeeper, and impact on workflow.ConclusioneCDSTs have the capacity to improve decision making for a cancer diagnosis, but the optimal mode of delivery remains unclear. Although such tools could assist GPs in the future, further well-designed trials of all eCDSTs are needed to determine their cost-effectiveness and the most appropriate implementation methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document