Bridging the gap: A priorities assessment tool to support shared decision making, maximize limited appointment time and increase patient satisfaction

2017 ◽  
Vol 145 ◽  
pp. 48-49
Author(s):  
A. Ellis ◽  
S. Shyne ◽  
M. Frey ◽  
S.V. Blank
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Increase Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Appointment Time

Bridging the Gap: A Priorities Assessment Tool to Support Shared Decision Making, Maximize Appointment Time, and Increase Patient Satisfaction in Women With Ovarian Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e148-e154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa K. Frey ◽  
Annie Ellis ◽  
Savannah Shyne ◽  
Ryan Kahn ◽  
Eloise Chapman-Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Feedback Form ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Symptom Index ◽  
Increase Patient Satisfaction

PURPOSE: Women with ovarian cancer identify patient-physician communication as an essential element in determining treatment course and believe a discussion about goals and values should precede treatment decisions. We sought to develop a patient-centered priorities assessment tool for women with ovarian cancer that could streamline communication, enhance treatment discussions, and increase patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a priorities assessment tool using a validated ovarian cancer symptom index (National Comprehensive Cancer Center–Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index-18) combined with an index to assess daily quality-of-life priorities. The tool was distributed to women with ovarian cancer in small focus group settings and online, followed by a postactivity feedback form. RESULTS: In this pilot study, 36 women completed the priorities assessment tool and 35 completed the postactivity feedback form between September 2015 and May 2016. All participants reported that the tool was easy to understand and comprehensive in scope. Twenty-nine participants (82.9%) completed the tool in 10 minutes or less. Most participants (n = 31, 86.1%) were able to stratify their priorities and identify 5 top treatment-related priorities. Participants who indicated that their goals and priorities had changed since diagnosis (n = 25, 69.4%) reported that the tool helped to identify current goals and priorities (22 [88%] of 25 participants) and would help them feel more comfortable participating in shared decision making with their medical team (21 [84%] of 25 participants). CONCLUSION: A patient-centered priorities assessment tool was easy to complete and viewed as comprehensive and useful in a pilot cohort of women with ovarian cancer. Use of a priorities assessment tool has the potential to enhance communication, promote shared decision making, and improve patient satisfaction.

scholarly journals Shared decision-making and the lessons learned about decision regret in cancer patients

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariam Chichua ◽  
Eleonora Brivio ◽  
Davide Mazzoni ◽  
Gabriella Pravettoni
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Medical Decisions ◽  
Increase Patient Satisfaction

AbstractThe commentary presents reflections on the literature on post-treatment cancer patient regret. Even though a lot of effort has been made to increase patient satisfaction by engaging them in medical decisions, patient regret remains present in clinical settings. In our commentary, we identify three main aspects of shared decision-making that previously have been shown to predict patient regret. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for physicians involved in the shared decision-making process. In addition, we make methodological suggestions for future research in the field.

scholarly journals NSQIP Impacts Patient Experience

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-95
Author(s):  
Maria Castaldi ◽  
Geena George ◽  
Pamela Turner ◽  
John McNelis
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
National Quality ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic Events

National Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) semiannual reports (SARs) revealed high observed to expected ratios for venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) on the surgical service. Press Ganey scores identified an area of particular weakness in shared decision-making in patient care. Patients reported little to no participation in shared decision-making. A performance improvement project was developed with a 2-fold objective: decrease the percentages of patients sustaining VTE through adequate screening and prophylaxis (VTEP) and to engage patients in shared decision-making to accept VTEP through enhanced patient-centered discussions and education on the risks and benefits of VTEP. A clinical pathway was developed to implement VTEP using a standardized risk assessment tool. Patient-centered discussion introduced VTEP and impact on perioperative safety. Results included telephone survey, NSQIP SARs, and Press Ganey patient experience survey. Using NSQIP data and a pathway developed for both VTE risk assessment and patient engagement, the authors observe immediate improvements in patient experience and decreased rates of VTE.

Informed Shared Decision-Making and Patient Satisfaction

2014 ◽  
Vol 55 (6) ◽  
pp. 586-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arjan G.J. Bot ◽  
Jeroen K.J. Bossen ◽  
James H. Herndon ◽  
David E. Ruchelsman ◽  
David Ring ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision

Shared Decision Making in Hernia Repair

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Szotek
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Synthetic Mesh ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Surgical Options

As the digital age of healthcare is evolving, patients are more aware, educated, and concerned about their surgical options due to access to information. Patients undergoing hernia repair are being exposed to the growing litigious environment surrounding mesh via targeted social media marketing and inorganic search engine optimization (paid SEO). As a result, we elected to implement a shared decision making (SDM) process to give our patients an active role in choosing the reinforcement material used in their repair. A cohort of 142 patients underwent the SDM process with 133 (93.7%) choosing the reinforced biologic repair (ReBAR), 8 patients (5.6%) chose permanent synthetic mesh and 1 patient (0.7%) chose a completely resorbable bio-synthetic mesh. Clinical outcomes have been similar before and after implementation of the SDM process. SDM, as has been shown in other fields of medicine, improved patient satisfaction, patient compliance, and decreased anxiety about the treatment plan. We believe that the implementation of a SDM process in hernia repair surgery will continue to result in increased patient satisfaction, reduce legal exposure, and warrants further investigation as the paradigms in the doctor-patient relationship continue to be disrupted by technology and the internet.

Validation of a Japanese Version of the Decision Regret Scale

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 44E-54E ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyomi Tanno ◽  
Seiji Bito ◽  
Yoh Isobe ◽  
Yasuo Takagi
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Process ◽  
Japanese Version ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Gallbladder Polyps ◽  
Decision Regret ◽  
Inguinal Hernias

Background and Purpose: In Japanese health care, no current index measures patient satisfaction with decision making during the treatment process. Our research aimed to test a Japanese version of the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) for this purpose. Methods: We distributed a Japanese version of the DRS twice, 3 weeks apart, to 80 postoperative patients younger than the age of 85 years with inguinal hernias, cholelithiasis, cholecystitis, and gallbladder polyps. Results: The reliability (α = .85) and validity of the Japanese version of the DRS was demonstrated among postoperative patients. Conclusion: The Japanese version of the DRS will have significant implications for clinicians in improving their shared decision making with patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document