scholarly journals DOES THE 2018 VA MISSION ACT IMPACT QUALITY OF CARE? AN EXAMPLE OF SHARED DECISION MAKING: OUTPATIENT PCI OUTCOMES AFTER SAME DAY DISCHARGE

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (11) ◽  
pp. 3526
Author(s):  
Sanket Gokhale ◽  
Binnie Desai ◽  
Aamir Twing ◽  
Adhir Ramesh Shroff
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Same Day Discharge

scholarly journals A Systematic Literature Review of Shared Decision Making in Cancer Care (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colleen A. McHorney ◽  
Lindsey T. Murray ◽  
Dayo Jagun ◽  
Jennifer Whiteley ◽  
Miriam Kimel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Quantitative Measure ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Clinician Communication

BACKGROUND Shared decision making (SDM) is a process in which health care providers and patients relate to and influence each other as they collaborate in making decisions about patients’ health care. Hypothesized as a means to improve quality of care, successful applications of SDM in routine cancer care have not been widely documented. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to examine the literature to determine if elements of SDM implementation between cancer patients and their clinicians were more or less successful at improving the quality of care and health outcomes. METHODS A systematic literature search of SDM approaches and outcomes in cancer care was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE. An integrative model for SDM was used to classify elements included in SDM intervention studies and the resulting outcomes. RESULTS From 1,018 unique publications, 23 articles meeting eligibility criteria were included. Only three studies addressed elements of patient-clinician interaction as part of the study objectives. Interventions included decision aid (DA) evaluation (n=22) and clinician communication training (n=1). SDM elements commonly included were: defining/explaining the problem (n=23); presenting options (n=19); discussing pros and cons (n=17); assessing patient priorities and preferences (n=17); clinician knowledge and recommendations (n=15); and making or deferring treatment decisions (n=12). The most frequently-measured outcomes were patient-reported outcomes including treatment preference or decision (n=12), decisional conflict (n=10), patient satisfaction (n=10), patient participation (n=9), and patient knowledge (n=7). No clear patterns demonstrating relationships between SDM elements and outcomes were identified. Information on how patients and clinicians utilized DA information to promote SDM was limited. CONCLUSIONS Evaluation of SDM in cancer care has been increasing. However, the term “SDM” was generally applied to studies that focused on the development and/or evaluation of DAs which limited the current analyses to a review of SDM elements as part of the DAs. Most studies did not include a qualitative or quantitative measure of SDM specific to patient-clinician communication and interaction. Instead, there was an underlying assumption that SDM occurred organically with DA implementation. Without a qualitative or quantitative measure of SDM, identification of successful SDM elements and their relationships to patient outcomes remains unclear. Additional research is warranted on SDM implementation and measurement in real-world cancer care settings.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of the DECIDE Interventions on Shared Decision Making and Perceived Quality of Care in Behavioral Health With Multicultural Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margarita Alegria ◽  
Ora Nakash ◽  
Kirsten Johnson ◽  
Andrea Ault-Brutus ◽  
Nicholas Carson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Behavioral Health ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Perceived Quality ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Perceived Quality Of Care

scholarly journals Shared Decision-Making towards a Higher Quality of Care: Is this the Norm?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Athanasiou ◽  
Chris Bachtsetzis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Complementary Relationship ◽  
Patient Control ◽  
Definition Of

Patient-doctor relationship has traditionally been paternalistic, in which the doctor decided on behalf of the patient. It focused mainly between the patient who called for help and the doctor whose decisions had to be silently observed and followed by the patient. In this paternalistic model, the physician used his skills to choose the necessary interventions and treatments that were likely to restore the health of the patient. All the information given to the patient was selected to encourage them to consent to the doctor’s decisions. This definition of the asymmetric or unbalanced interaction between physicians and patients has begun to be questioned over the last 20 years. There has been a shift from this direction to one where the patient is more informed, empowered, and independent - a move from a “paternalistic” to a more “complementary” relationship. Critics suggested a more active, autonomous patient-centered role which supports greater patient control, reduced doctors’ dominance, and a more mutual participation. This approach has been described as one where the doctor attempts to enter the patient’s world to see the disease with the eyes of the patient and is becoming the predominant model in clinical practice today.

Optimizing patient adherence to stroke rehabilitation: A mixed method telerehabilitation trial (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Gaboury ◽  
Michel Tousignant ◽  
Hélène Corriveau ◽  
Matthew Menear ◽  
Guylaine Le Dorze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Stroke Rehabilitation ◽  
Patient Adherence ◽  
Interprofessional Collaboration ◽  
Interdisciplinary Collaboration ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Strong evidence supports beginning stroke rehabilitation as soon as the patient’s medical status has stabilized and continuing following discharge from acute care. However, adherence to rehabilitation treatments over the rehabilitation phase has been shown to be suboptimal. OBJECTIVE Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the impact of a telerehabilitation platform on stroke patients’ adherence to a rehabilitation plan and on their level of reintegration to normal social activities, in comparison with usual care. The primary outcome is patient adherence to stroke rehabilitation (up to 12 weeks), which is hypothesized to influence reintegration to normal living. Secondary outcomes for patients include functional recovery and independence, depression, adverse events related to telerehabilitation, use of services (up to 6 months), perception of interprofessional shared decision making, and quality of services received. Interprofessional collaboration as well as quality of interprofessional shared decision making will be measured on clinicians. METHODS In this interrupted time series with a convergent qualitative component, rehabilitation teams will be trained to develop rehabilitation treatment plans that engage the patient and family, while taking advantage of a telerehabilitation platform to deliver the treatment. The intervention will entail 220 patients to receive stroke telerehabilitation with an interdisciplinary group of clinicians (telerehabilitation) versus face-to-face, standard of care (n = 110 patients). RESULTS Results: Our Research Ethics Board has approved the study in June 2020. Data collection for the control group is underway, with another year planned before we begin the intervention phase. CONCLUSIONS This study will contribute to minimize both knowledge and practice gaps, while producing robust, in-depth data on the factors related to the effectiveness of telerehabilitation in a stroke rehabilitation continuum. Findings will inform best practices guidelines regarding telecare services and the provision of telerehabilitation, including recommendations regarding effective interdisciplinary collaboration regarding stroke rehabilitation. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04440215

Improving the Perception of Patient-Centered Wellness in a Virtual Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. JDNP-D-20-00078
Author(s):  
Sybilla Myers ◽  
Christopher Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Theory ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Mobile App ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
The Social

BackgroundPerceived health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is fundamental to well-being and is a meaningful way to measure physical and mental health.Local ProblemNo standard method exists for measuring perceived HRQOL during the COVID-19 pandemic in participants as they attempt to improve their self-determined wellness goals. An implementation plan that considers the social distancing limitations imposed can be used to predict an individual’s likelihood of long-term success.MethodsDuring the four, 2-week plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, the Social Cognitive Theory model informed the implementation of the four core interventions. To guide iterative changes, the data was analyzed through Excel and run charts.InterventionsThe four core interventions were the shared decision-making tool (SDMT), health mobile app tool (HMAT), wellness tracker tool (WTT), and the team engagement plan.ResultsAmong 28 participants, perceived quality of life increased by 70%, engagement in shared decision-making increased to 82%, app use and confidence increased to 85%, and goal attainment reached 81%.ConclusionsThe SDMT, health app, and wellness tracker created a methodical plan of accountability for increasing participant wellness. The contextual barrier of the COVID-19 pandemic added a negative wellness burden which was mitigated by creating a patient-centered culture of wellness.

scholarly journals Refusal to Travel in the National Ambulance Service. A Patient Care Report examination.

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eamonn Byrne ◽  
Sasha Selby ◽  
Paul Gallen ◽  
Alan Watts
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Vital Signs ◽  
Ambulance Service ◽  
Guidance Document ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Clinical Guidance ◽  
Decision Making Model

<p><strong>Introduction</strong></p><p>Every patient has the right to refuse treatment and, or transport (RTT) to hospital (1). The National Ambulance Service (NAS) has operated under a clinical guidance document that requires an assessment of patient capacity and a baseline amount of data to be gathered on every patient to facilitate the patient making an informed decision (2,3). An increase in the rate of non-conveyance of patients and refusal to travel calls as well as an increasing number of complaints prompted a quality improvement initiative based on improving and facilitating a shared decision-making model.</p><p><strong>Aim</strong></p><p>For patients who RTT, to establish a baseline quality of information collected and recorded on a Patient Care Report.</p><p><strong>Methods</strong></p><p>All NAS incidents closed with a refusal of treatment or transport, from 1<sup>st</sup> Jan 2017 to 9<sup>th</sup> November 2017 were identified from National Emergency Operation Centre (NEOC). A random selection of 75 Patient care reports (52 Paper and 23 Electronic) were identified and reviewed. Compliance with the refusal to travel guidance document was measured.</p><p><strong>Results</strong></p><p>31% of paper PCR’s reviewed were missing a complete set of vital signs. An average of 48.4 % (Median 48.4% Range 36.5% to 61.5%) were missing a complete second set of vital signs. 17.3% of combined forms were missing the patient’s chief complaint and 38.7% had no practitioner clinical impression entered. 24% had no capacity assessment completed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p><p>Clinical information recorded by NAS staff did not meet the clinical guidance document requirements. It is impossible to assess what information was given to a patient to facilitate a shared decision-making model. The quality of NAS documentation can be improved for patients who refuse to travel.</p>

scholarly journals Perceptions of Parents of Children with Asthma and their Physicians on Quality of Shared Decision-Making and Care Coordination in 2 Neighboring Health Systems

2018 ◽  
Vol 141 (2) ◽  
pp. AB201
Author(s):  
Tamar Sapir ◽  
Andrew H. Liu ◽  
Madeleine Shalowitz ◽  
Ewa H. Schafer ◽  
Sindhura Bandi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Children With Asthma

scholarly journals Choice of dialysis modality: patients’ experiences and quality of decision after shared decision-making

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanette Finderup ◽  
Kirsten Lomborg ◽  
Jens Dam Jensen ◽  
Dawn Stacey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Dialysis Modality
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document